UN Maps show we are losing in Afghanistan

[Samson]

The release of 2 confidentail UN "residual risk accessibility" maps show that insurgents have relocated from the south where the main focus of combat is occuring to other parts of the country. Areas that were safe are no longer safe and the country as a whole is worse off than 6 months ago.

The Wall Street Journal article has the maps at the following:

U.N. Maps Rate Afghanistan Less Secure - WSJ.com

This is another example of how not to occupy a country or fight insurgents. Sufficient amount of forces is necassary to occupy all of the country to keep insurgents from moving around the country to avoid direct contact with security forces. Now that we have committed to leave all they have to do is avoid any direct contact and do their little bombings and ambushes and eventually they will have the country to themselves and the Taliban can regain control.

I don't think so, the main problem is that the US has not learned from Vietnam, rather than fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare which is a proven strategy (used by commonwealth forces) during the Malaya war against communist insurgents the US military sticks to major battles, tactical strikes and random searches for militants (the same failed strategy used in Vietnam). If the US stuck to guerrilla warfare, arming local warlords and building up the economy in Afghanistan then the war would have been over years ago, all the current situation in Afghanistan demonstrates is that the US military needs an overhaul and that some leaders at the top have to go, that is if the US really wants to win the war.

PS: You would think after training the Taliban the CIA would have the good sense to realize the threat it is facing and be able to deal with it, after all it did train it.

Interesting point about the economy, I agree it's crucial. But outside of Opium, what does Afghanistan have?

Precious metals and mineral ore.

 

[Samson]

We'll have to disagree on the necessity of invading Afghanistan. I do not believe it was necessary.

What should the response have been?

Covert Black ops to take out the people involved not the whole scale invasion of 2 countries.

Then we slam our borders shut, revamp our own border security and make it impossible to come to America and over stay a visa or to be here illegally

That makes absolutely too much sense.

However, "we" are in Afganistan with the UN (see the OP) "coalition."

Whenever the UN is mentioned "we" need to suppose that the presence of US forces to achieve US goals is probably a very minor factor.

Let's just take gander at the UN Security Council's Permanent Members:

Russia, China, France, GB, USA.

Here are the numbers:

United States – 95,000
United Kingdom – 10,500
Germany – 4,877
France – 3,850
Italy – 3,770
Canada – 2,913
Poland – 2,488
Turkey – 1,815
Romania – 1,664
Australia – 1,550
Spain – 1,505

There are 37 other countries with troops in Afghanistan.

Now it is evident to me that Russians probably shouldn't be sent to A-stan as part of

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386[2] as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[3] It is engaged in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

But what about China?

WTF is up with France? 3,850 troops? And the rest of the European Continent? They cannot muster more than 20,000 troops?

No, let's face it: The UN continues to use the USA's blood and resources to remedy their own problems. And We let them, because left to their own devices, they create bigger problems.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Sunni Man
The version of Sharia the Taliban was stricter than others. but it was still Sharia.

Basically, it should be up to the Afghan people to decide whether to follow that version of Sharia or not.

Originally posted by High_Gravity
Thats the thing, under the Taliban there no choices. I agree that the Afghan people do deserve to choose whether they want to live like that or not but under the Taliban they would not get that.

I have a question for High_Gravity and (mainly) Sunni Man.

Who is this individual you're talking about? Who's this gentleman you call "Afghan people" who, according to you, desperately wants to live under an islamic theocracy? I would love to meet this guy personally.

If you are reffering to the collectivity of human beings who live in that country you'd better think twice because I can introduce both of you to hundreds of thousands of afghans who do not want to be forced to adjust their personal lives to any kind of medieval rule of conduct.

Of course the majority of Afghans who support shariah law has the physical power to disrespect their rights as taxpaying citizens of Afghanistan and commit the brutal disrespect of imposing a religious dictatorship that will interfere with their personal lives.

They have the physical power to do so, no doubt about it, but they don't have any moral right to do it.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Afghan people lived under Sharia long before the Taliban came to power.

And Sharia will be the law of the land after the western powers leave Afghanistan.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Sunni Man
The Afghan people lived under Sharia long before the Taliban came to power.

And Sharia will be the law of the land after the western powers leave Afghanistan.

I couldn't have summed up the totalitarian nature of the political model known as theocracy any better.

Deeply religious afghans, by virtue of being the majority, have the "right" to impose their way of life on secular afghans by brute force.

tsk, tsk, tsk...

 

[Sunni Man]

Deeply religious afghans, by virtue of being the majority, have the "right" to impose their way of life on secular afghans by brute force.

Afghanistan is a muslim country governed by Sharia Law.

Any of these secular Afghans you claim to know are free to leave at any time.

 

[José]

Deeply religious afghans, by virtue of being the majority, have the "right" to impose their way of life on secular afghans by brute force.

Afghanistan is a muslim country governed by Sharia Law.

Any of these secular Afghans you claim to know are free to leave at any time.

OK, then Sunni...

"Hate the sin but love the sinner."

"Hate religious fundamentalism but love the fundamentalist."

Someday in the future, we're gonna bury your medieval ideology once and for all EVEN IN SAUDI ARABIA, but I'll continue to love every peaceful theocrat of any stripe, specially a funny one like you.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

What should the response have been?

Covert Black ops to take out the people involved not the whole scale invasion of 2 countries.

Then we slam our borders shut, revamp our own border security and make it impossible to come to America and over stay a visa or to be here illegally

That makes absolutely too much sense.

However, "we" are in Afganistan with the UN (see the OP) "coalition."

Whenever the UN is mentioned "we" need to suppose that the presence of US forces to achieve US goals is probably a very minor factor.

Let's just take gander at the UN Security Council's Permanent Members:

Russia, China, France, GB, USA.

Here are the numbers:

United States – 95,000
United Kingdom – 10,500
Germany – 4,877
France – 3,850
Italy – 3,770
Canada – 2,913
Poland – 2,488
Turkey – 1,815
Romania – 1,664
Australia – 1,550
Spain – 1,505

There are 37 other countries with troops in Afghanistan.

Now it is evident to me that Russians probably shouldn't be sent to A-stan as part of

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386[2] as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[3] It is engaged in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present).

But what about China?

WTF is up with France? 3,850 troops? And the rest of the European Continent? They cannot muster more than 20,000 troops?

No, let's face it: The UN continues to use the USA's blood and resources to remedy their own problems. And We let them, because left to their own devices, they create bigger problems.

Agreed.

And China's easy. Cmon man, me and you both know they wanna see us fall. I'm pretty sure it'll be a cold day in hell before they send even 1 soldier, medic, etc. to help us anywhere.

 

[Marc39]

Deeply religious afghans, by virtue of being the majority, have the "right" to impose their way of life on secular afghans by brute force.

Afghanistan is a muslim country governed by Sharia Law.

Any of these secular Afghans you claim to know are free to leave at any time.

Abu, I guess you fell asleep during the infidel history class when they taught the fact that Afghanistan was a Buddhist country BEFORE being conquered and ruined by the Muhammadan?

Read, learn,, slave of allah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Afghanistan

After all, the religion of peace says to kill the Buddhist idolator...

Quran 9:5...

Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and give Zakât, then leave their way free. Verily, Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful

 

[High_Gravity]

Originally posted by Sunni Man
The version of Sharia the Taliban was stricter than others. but it was still Sharia.

Basically, it should be up to the Afghan people to decide whether to follow that version of Sharia or not.

Originally posted by High_Gravity
Thats the thing, under the Taliban there no choices. I agree that the Afghan people do deserve to choose whether they want to live like that or not but under the Taliban they would not get that.

I have a question for High_Gravity and (mainly) Sunni Man.

Who is this individual you're talking about? Who's this gentleman you call "Afghan people" who, according to you, desperately wants to live under an islamic theocracy? I would love to meet this guy personally.

If you are reffering to the collectivity of human beings who live in that country you'd better think twice because I can introduce both of you to hundreds of thousands of afghans who do not want to be forced to adjust their personal lives to any kind of medieval rule of conduct.

Of course the majority of Afghans who support shariah law has the physical power to disrespect their rights as taxpaying citizens of Afghanistan and commit the brutal disrespect of imposing a religious dictatorship that will interfere with their personal lives.

They have the physical power to do so, no doubt about it, but they don't have any moral right to do it.

I never said the Afghans wanted to live under Islamic law, I said they have the right to make a choice of whether or not they should live that way.

 

[José]

Originally posted by High_Gravity
I never said the Afghans wanted to live under Islamic law, I said they have the right to make a choice of whether or not they should live that way.

Here you go again talking about that imaginary guy that only exists in your mind, the Afghan people.

You have religious afghans:

and secular afghans:

Religious afghans have every right to live their personal lives according to the teachings of the Koran (they can do exactly that in a secular state).

But they have no right to use their numbers to impose an Islamic government on their fellow countrymen who do not share their religious fervor.

 

[High_Gravity]

Originally posted by High_Gravity
I never said the Afghans wanted to live under Islamic law, I said they have the right to make a choice of whether or not they should live that way.

Here you go again talking about that imaginary guy that only exists in your mind, the Afghan people.

You have religious afghans:

and secular afghans:

Religious afghans have every right to live their personal lives according to the teachings of the Koran (they can do exactly that in a secular state).

But they have no right to use their numbers to impose an Islamic government on their fellow countrymen who do not share their religious fervor.

Jose I agree with you man, I am the one who posted those pics originally, calm down. I think the Afghans should be allowed to live as they want.

 

[José]

Originally posted by High_Gravity
Jose I agree with you man, I am the one who posted those pics originally, calm down. I think the Afghans should be allowed to live as they want.

OK, dude... my criticism wasn't really directed at you in the first place...

I just can't believe the irony of Sunni Man's words went unnoticed to the whole Board.

Sunni Man: We in the West must DEMOCRATICALLY respect the right of the religious majority in Afghanistan to impose a religious DICTATORSHIP on the secular minority.

It's a DICTATORSHIP desired by the majority so we must call it a DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP.



The guy is a riot.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Afghan people have had a form of Democracy for centuries.


Loya Jirga (Grand Assembly)

Despite the fact that traditions of jirgas are as old as the civilisation of Afghanistan is, yet its practice to turn it into regular national phenomenon on a grand scale was owned by the more modern rulers and inhabitants of Afghanistan. Following the rise of Mirwais Khan Hotak as leader of Afghans, the jirgas became a national and regular feature for deciding matters of common concern.

There are two types of Loya Jirgas: One called by the people themselves at the time of national crisis to deliberate and decide upon matters of war and peace, election of Amir or King, and restoration of national sovereignty and national independence. Secondly, when the circumstances and rules of the game compel the ruler or leader to consult people with regard to urgent and important matters, like enactment of fundamental law, ratification and endorsement of treaties reached with outside powers and defence of territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Afghanland.com Afghanistan Loya Jirga

 

[Marc39]

The Afghan people have had a form of Democracy for centuries.

Abu, Afghanistan was a peaceful Buddhist country before the savage Muhammadan invaded and destroyed it, like the Muhammadan has turned every Islamic country into a shithole.

Read, learn, ignorant slave of allah...
Buddhism in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammadanism is a dreadful curse, Abu. Go back to Arabia where you belong.

Alexis de Toqueville...

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill...

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/River-War-Sir-Winston-Churchill/dp/1598184253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288411221&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The River War (9781598184259): Sir Winston S. Churchill: Books[/ame]

 

[hipeter924]

The Afghan people have had a form of Democracy for centuries.

Abu, Afghanistan was a peaceful Buddhist country before the savage Muhammadan invaded and destroyed it, like the Muhammadan has turned every Islamic country into a shithole.

Read, learn, ignorant slave of allah...
Buddhism in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammadanism is a dreadful curse, Abu. Go back to Arabia where you belong.

Alexis de Toqueville...

I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.

Winston Churchill...

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/River-War-Sir-Winston-Churchill/dp/1598184253/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288411221&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: The River War (9781598184259): Sir Winston S. Churchill: Books[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLviGqEE4Aw&feature=related[/ame]

They destroyed it to cover it up, just like Turk's blow up Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Kurdish villages,etc to hide the Genocides they have committed over the years.

 

[MOOE]

The British didn´t learn in 1842, the Russians didn´t learn and the United States don´t learn. The question is why? Several politians here say: "Our liberty is defended at the Hindukusch". I think this is a kind of bullshit. With all military means you can´t change a culture that has a different history for many hundreds of years. I think it´s serious what the Bush-Men made with this stereotyped black-white painting of good and bad. And the long term consequences will be more serious, I suppose. As a german I say thank you to the US to liberate Europe from this inhuman fascist regime from June 1944 on until those german bastards were beaten. But things and reasons for war have changed and I guess that the military cost -along other reasons- perhaps can make the US Financial System collapse.

 

[editec]

If American foreign policy was really sensible, our best friend in the central Asia would be IRAN.

But as our foreign policy is crafted for the benefit of corporations, rather than for society as a whole, our allies are societies that aren't at all like ours.

Saudi Arabia, for example.

Nothing in that society is remotely sympathetic to our way of life.

 

[trobinett]

The release of 2 confidentail UN "residual risk accessibility" maps show that insurgents have relocated from the south where the main focus of combat is occuring to other parts of the country. Areas that were safe are no longer safe and the country as a whole is worse off than 6 months ago.

The Wall Street Journal article has the maps at the following:

U.N. Maps Rate Afghanistan Less Secure - WSJ.com

This is another example of how not to occupy a country or fight insurgents. Sufficient amount of forces is necassary to occupy all of the country to keep insurgents from moving around the country to avoid direct contact with security forces. Now that we have committed to leave all they have to do is avoid any direct contact and do their little bombings and ambushes and eventually they will have the country to themselves and the Taliban can regain control.

Now that you have the Knowledge, if we can believe those maps, what would you do?

Nothing?

Leave the country NOW?

Bring in more troops?

Nuke the place?

Send in boat loads of money?

Win their "hearts and minds"?

Or, just keep posting irrelevant bull shit?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

These Maps are accurate. According to my sources,the Taliban control a large portion of Afghanistan. We are losing Afghanistan. Make no mistake about that.