Wolfire Games Forums

Hmm. Oh well, no hope in enlightening you. All I can say is "peace" and "happy thanksgiving".

Untadaike wrote:Hmm. Oh well, no hope in enlightening you. All I can say is "peace" and "happy thanksgiving".

Same to you.

TheBigCheese wrote:How can you say that? You can't imagine the irony calling the American government an authoritarian, criminal government, compared to the rest of the world. There is nothing authoritarian about the American government.

I'd like to point out that US government and culture have lots of authority on the global scale. It's not what you were talking about at all, but there are many things most people never think about... like the fact that for many people in many contexts, "America" (i.e. two continents) is synonymous for the US. It's like people calling all of British Isles "England", except that instead two big islands they're talking about at least one continent.

Stephen Kinzer explains it very well in several of his books.
http://payvand.com/news/06/may/1168.html

Also, the (female) journalist manages to represent one of the worst instances of inability to understand "non-American" cultures I've yet to see in writing. The last paragraph she wrote answers the title she set for the interview perfectly.

Hindsight is 20/20.

The US has a complicated history with the Middle East and they've been pretty successful over there despite what you might hear from extremists portraying the Taliban and other radical Guerrilla forces as demons; a man with a rag on his head holding a surplus Kalashnikov riding in the back of a pick-up truck would not stand a chance against a trained, better equipped and better protected soldier who comes form the army of a nation that arguably has the most powerful military force in the world.

But if only it was as simple as marching in and taking a few shots, then going home. Terrorists fight dirty, if you haven't noticed, and try to make the fighting as inconvenient as possible for our forces (flashback to Vietnam and the Viet Cong's booby traps :V) I remember reading somewhere that in every major direct conflict between US/NATO forces and terrorists that's gone on in the Iraq War, the terrorists were smeared like a puppy run over by a steamroller. This is probably why terrorist groups in the Middle East are a bit reluctant to face American forces directly and so they bury IEDs into the road and take potshots with RPGs before turning and running. And then of course, the suicide bomber. A proverbial win-win situation- you'll die no matter what happens, which is what you want.

The greatest irony of the whole thing is this started near the end of the cold war. I'm not talking about Desert Storm either, but when Russia tried making a move to invade the Middle East. What did the US do? Outright opposition to this invasion? Oh no; they supplied Taliban forces (who at the time were just really a militia group and not identified as terrorists, or as being affiliated with terrorists) with everything from surplus M16s to Stingers so they could fight off the Russians. And it worked, too. Russia underestimated the training of the Taliban, and that backed with a surprise arsenal of US weapons, made them turn tail and run not too long into the war. Of course, America hadn't really cared too much about Afghanistan at the time, they were just trying to cripple Russia by supplying Russia's enemy (The enemy of my enemy is my friend) Ironically, the Soviets did the same thing in Vietnam, supplying the Northern Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong with weapons and vehicles. It was America's chance to get back at their world-power counterpart, and they took it.

Of course, the Taliban turned out to have some more plans for using US weapons, and they didn't include shipping the guns back across the pond. Not too long after they met a worthy ally; Mr. Saddam Hussein. And the rest is history, and still going on.

tl;dr: We've been in the Middle East for decades and we've been winning for decades. The US has serious responsibilities over in the East now and that includes a responsibility to try and protect civilians. Seriously- how good would it look if the most powerful nation in the world came into a place, killed who they wanted (in this case Saddam Hussein and most of the Taliban, as they were 'officially' crushed as a government force a while back) and then said "kthxbye" and left?

tl;tl;dr: The US has obligations to try and protect the civilians of the Middle East after what they've stirred up in the past 40 years there. Do you think the government enjoys war, or enjoys having dead and wounded veterans? The Middle East is an extraordinarily complex matter and can't be resolved by pulling soldiers out of the East and cutting military funding.

tl;tl;tl;dr: Unless you've got better, realistic ideas for the situation, deal with it like the rest of the world.

Sorry to bring any arguing back, yet I thought it was only appropriate: for those of you that have yet to understand my political views, have put together a short film that visually represents my beliefs. Please take a moment to watch (about 2 minutes long):

Regarding the original topic. Three words:

Sunk cost fallacy.

hmm... I've been thinking since last, and I've come to this conclusion: fuck the war let's have some PEACE

m3nace wrote:hmm... I've been thinking since last, and I've come to this conclusion: fuck the war let's have some PEACE

Yes! We need to urge an immediate congressional debate on Obama's decision for 30,000 troops deployed to the middle east. He's getting pressured by military generals. That decision was made behind closed doors, reminiscent of previous presidents of the US.

I think that Obama needs to talk the actual Afghan elders and see what THEY want. And I'm sure they don't want armed men, they need humanitarian help, doctors, teachers, and food and water and shelter, not drugs and violence.

Why can't they recieve these basic needs? These rights may not be written in any law book, but we are all human on the same planet. No matter how different we are, even the lowest of the lowest deserve this basic human rights. No exceptions. That's what I believe.

Untadaike wrote:

m3nace wrote:hmm... I've been thinking since last, and I've come to this conclusion: fuck the war let's have some PEACE

Yes! We need to urge an immediate congressional debate on Obama's decision for 30,000 troops deployed to the middle east. He's getting pressured by military generals. That decision was made behind closed doors, reminiscent of previous presidents of the US.

I think that Obama needs to talk the actual Afghan elders and see what THEY want. And I'm sure they don't want armed men, they need humanitarian help, doctors, teachers, and food and water and shelter, not drugs and violence.

Why can't they recieve these basic needs? These rights may not be written in any law book, but we are all human on the same planet. No matter how different we are, even the lowest of the lowest deserve this basic human rights. No exceptions. That's what I believe.

i believe the exact same
no human deserves to live more than others, but capitalism has blinded everyone.

m3nace wrote:hmm... I've been thinking since last, and I've come to this conclusion: fuck the war let's have some PEACE

OH HEY

GREAT JOB SIDESTEPPING MY WALL OF TEXT

Which I'll summarize with my "tl;dr" parts.

Ragdollmaster wrote:tl;dr: We've been in the Middle East for decades and we've been winning for decades. The US has serious responsibilities over in the East now and that includes a responsibility to try and protect civilians. Seriously- how good would it look if the most powerful nation in the world came into a place, killed who they wanted (in this case Saddam Hussein and most of the Taliban, as they were 'officially' crushed as a government force a while back) and then said "kthxbye" and left?

tl;tl;dr: The US has obligations to try and protect the civilians of the Middle East after what they've stirred up in the past 40 years there. Do you think the government enjoys war, or enjoys having dead and wounded veterans? The Middle East is an extraordinarily complex matter and can't be resolved by pulling soldiers out of the East and cutting military funding.

tl;tl;tl;dr: Unless you've got better, more realistic ideas for the situation, deal with it like the rest of the world.

Sure, let's magically pull out of Afghanistan and instantly make peace with the Taliban. I don't want to sound like a dick but honestly, if you're going to post your opinion, at least make it reasonable and logical instead of some kind of childish fantasy. Pulling out of a war you've invested decades of military and financial capabilities into is not that simple.

Obviously, the whole point of the war is to eventually have peace in the Middle East. Simply saying "LET'S HAVE PEACE" is not a very progressive addition to the discussion. It's the equivalent of saying "LET'S CURE CANCER" and then not offering any suggestions as to how that would happen.

Stating the end goal of an operation as its procedure is utter rubbish.

"OKAY DOCTOR WE NEED TO TRANSPLANT THIS HEART INTO THIS PATIENT. ANY IDEAS?"
"Yeah how about you try transplanting the heart into the patient?"
"...FFFFFFFFFFFF-"

Wanting peace is great and everything but it can't be achieved simply by ending all military involvement with a country. Most of the war, at least to the radicals, isn't even physical. To them, 90% of it is some holy, religious battle to follow Allah's bidding; people who are extremists rarely think logically. They just hate everyone who isn't like them. You think not shooting them will solve anything? No! For them, it's just a sign that their God is on their side and that they're winning.

tl;dr; This war is more about politics and religion, anyways. It's just a very nasty side effect that it involves bloodshed which unfortunately also affects innocent civilians in the Middle East. Nobody likes war and nobody likes the violence resultant from it (except for psychotic maniacs who've just acquired rocket propelled chainsaw launchers) but sometimes it's necessary. Not having any military conflict != Peace. At best, the US would enjoy a small break from the war, maybe lasting a couple of months, while terrorists start fighting the government over in the Middle East in earnest- and at best, the two sides would be equal.

But the thing is, in this situation, the antagonists have such an amazing advantage over the 'good guys' for a number of reasons. Number one, they're not concerned about civilians. Number two, they don't have to 'play by the book' like organized military personnel do. Number three, they have a lot less to lose and a lot more to gain by beating their enemies than the US or NATO forces do.

tl;tl;dr: Wanting peace is a great goal but it can't be accomplished as simply as you (and admittedly, most people) would like.

Untadaike wrote:

m3nace wrote:hmm... I've been thinking since last, and I've come to this conclusion: fuck the war let's have some PEACE

Yes! We need to urge an immediate congressional debate on Obama's decision for 30,000 troops deployed to the middle east. He's getting pressured by military generals. That decision was made behind closed doors, reminiscent of previous presidents of the US.

I think that Obama needs to talk the actual Afghan elders and see what THEY want. And I'm sure they don't want armed men, they need humanitarian help, doctors, teachers, and food and water and shelter, not drugs and violence.

Why can't they recieve these basic needs? These rights may not be written in any law book, but we are all human on the same planet. No matter how different we are, even the lowest of the lowest deserve this basic human rights. No exceptions. That's what I believe.

You can't simply withdraw all troops like that. In order to not lose any progress made instantly you must round things off and finish what you were doing before you can pull out. In order to pull out 30000 had to be sent in to compensate for the troops other countries had already withdrawn.
The germans taught us how to withdraw during world war two. This isn't just any bullshit move.

Richie Rabbit wrote:

Not funny, dude.

Soooo, we've got some pessimists and some realists? Lovely. I'm not going to sit around and do nothing, however "unrealistic" withdrawing troops from Iraq. I know that peace takes work. Are you trying to say that you're a lazy slob and you'll sit back and wait for other people to fix the world? Again, lovely.

Untadaike wrote:Soooo, we've got some pessimists and some realists? Lovely. I'm not going to sit around and do nothing, however "unrealistic" withdrawing troops from Iraq. I know that peace takes work. Are you trying to say that you're a lazy slob and you'll sit back and wait for other people to fix the world? Again, lovely.

Once you come up with a plan to withdraw all troops and ensure peace in the Middle East, then we'll be great. But until that day, there's honestly not much you can do. However much it hurts to think about it, one random person can't change the course of an entire country. For that you need power and leverage.

You say it's lazy to sit around and do nothing. It's not that we're lazy. We just realize that there's nothing we can do to effectively change the course of international affairs and choose not to waste time trying to.