Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: If the U.S. is on the verge of losing in Afghanistan, should it try partitioning it?
Yes 3 8.82%
No 31 91.18%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2018, 09:46 AM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,428,613 times
Reputation: 40736

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
its called resolve. Americans have not had much of that since WW2..............

Worse yet, many Americans suffer the delusion that the Constitution tasks us with being the World Police.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2018, 11:49 AM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,227,522 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffdoorgunner View Post
its called resolve. Americans have not had much of that since WW2..............
It’s easy to have resolve in wars that you can win.

We can’t win in Afghanistan. Why? Because NO ONE can, and Americans aren’t Supermen last I checked.

All the resolve in the world won’t win a war in Afghanistan. You can however resolve to get your ass kicked. The Afghans have no problems historically issuing that out. That’s why they’re undefeated so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 11:58 AM
 
13,652 posts, read 20,788,575 times
Reputation: 7653
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
It’s easy to have resolve in wars that you can win.

We can’t win in Afghanistan. Why? Because NO ONE can, and Americans aren’t Supermen last I checked.

All the resolve in the world won’t win a war in Afghanistan. You can however resolve to get your ass kicked. The Afghans have no problems historically issuing that out. That’s why they’re undefeated so far.
Well, win in that Afghanistan all of sudden becomes the Canada of the Hindu Kush and stands as an example of tolerance, modernism, and love of diversity? Hell no. Not gonna happen.

But if the strategy is merely to fight a low-level war that keeps the Taliban from full control and thus denies them (and their Al Qaeda or ISIS allies) a base of operations, then we are winning big.

Depends on what the goal is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 12:06 PM
 
5,462 posts, read 3,039,252 times
Reputation: 3271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
As you know, the U.S. has been fighting a war in Afghanistan against the Taliban for the last 16.5 years. We officially got into Afghanistan in order to eliminate the safe haven that the Taliban provided to al-Qaeda, but another large part of our mission in Afghanistan was to modernize the country--specifically by bringing modern technology, schools, and women's rights there. Obviously our success in regards to this has been only partial, though--with the results primarily visible in Afghan cities.

Anyway, my question is this--if the U.S. will be on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan (something which I don't think is true yet considering that the war there currently appears to be a stalemate), should the U.S. aim to work with pro-U.S. Afghan politicians and military officials to partition the country?

Here's an ethnic map of Afghanistan:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5642/3...2139f2fd_b.jpg

The Taliban appears to have the strongest support among Afghan Pashtuns (who primarily--albeit not exclusively--live in southern Afghanistan).

Thus, do you think that a losing U.S. should try to create a separate state (or more than one separate state) in northern Afghanistan in order to prevent the Taliban from seizing all of Afghanistan and in order to allow the U.S. and U.S. influence to continue to have a presence in a large part of Afghanistan?

Any thoughts on this?
I am thinking its to counter China&Russia and support Israel in case of any major issues in ME.

And I hate that shameless mentality of partitioning the countries for their own benefit. I m sure US wont stoop to that level like British.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 12:16 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,663,022 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Amazing, what a bunch of stupid people can do with AK-47's, against the 2 most powerful armies in the world.

Makes the case, for never ever surrendering your right, or forcing others to surrender their right, to keep the arms they choose to defend themselves with.

Freedom and Liberty of an armed populace, is not for Beta's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 01:21 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,227,522 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Well, win in that Afghanistan all of sudden becomes the Canada of the Hindu Kush and stands as an example of tolerance, modernism, and love of diversity? Hell no. Not gonna happen.

But if the strategy is merely to fight a low-level war that keeps the Taliban from full control and thus denies them (and their Al Qaeda or ISIS allies) a base of operations, then we are winning big.

Depends on what the goal is.
I agree with the first paragraph, but I disagree strongly with the second.

The Taliban isn’t our enemy. They never were. As it appertains to Al Qaeda, they BEGGED the United States to offer them evidence of his guilt before turning him over. We ignored their request because we saw it as beneath our standing to deal with a ragtag group like the Taliban. Making enemies where we have none over issues of wounded pride is becoming an American habit. For example, the Iranians offered their help to us in Afghanistan, and we spit in their faces. You can only keep doing crap like that for so long before you end up chasing your own tail...that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan at this point.

Keeping the Taliban from holding the country is a wasted mission. That means staying in Afghanistan in perpetuity. No other first world nation is that hardheaded BUT us. Even the British and French, who had more invested in empire building than we ever have, saw these matters for what they are...a waste of lives and money with no end in sight. There comes a time to declare that there are limits to power, and pack your bags.

Frankly, I think the problem is what you say in your last paragraph. What’s the goal? That is something that can’t possibly be articulated at this point because the goalposts keep moving. It went from getting Bin Laden to god only knows what! I’m a stickler for foreign policy, and even I can’t get a bead on where this is going.

All I know is that we’re ultimately going to lose. But then, that doesn’t take a genius to figure out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,558,965 times
Reputation: 24780
Lightbulb If the U.S. is on the verge of losing in Afghanistan, should it try partitioning it?

After 16.5 years, it should be obvious to everyone that there's nothing to be "won" in Afghanistan.

What we need to do is get out, leaving a small security force to protect our embassy. We have failed to learn what the Mongols, Brits and Russians learned the hard way: the Afghans will always be the way they are and will unite only to oppose anyone who attempts to occupy their country.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 01:40 PM
 
13,652 posts, read 20,788,575 times
Reputation: 7653
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
I agree with the first paragraph, but I disagree strongly with the second.

The Taliban isn’t our enemy. They never were. As it appertains to Al Qaeda, they BEGGED the United States to offer them evidence of his guilt before turning him over. We ignored their request because we saw it as beneath our standing to deal with a ragtag group like the Taliban. Making enemies where we have none over issues of wounded pride is becoming an American habit. For example, the Iranians offered their help to us in Afghanistan, and we spit in their faces. You can only keep doing crap like that for so long before you end up chasing your own tail...that’s what we’re doing in Afghanistan at this point.

Keeping the Taliban from holding the country is a wasted mission. That means staying in Afghanistan in perpetuity. No other first world nation is that hardheaded BUT us. Even the British and French, who had more invested in empire building than we ever have, saw these matters for what they are...a waste of lives and money with no end in sight. There comes a time to declare that there are limits to power, and pack your bags.

Frankly, I think the problem is what you say in your last paragraph. What’s the goal? That is something that can’t possibly be articulated at this point because the goalposts keep moving. It went from getting Bin Laden to god only knows what! I’m a stickler for foreign policy, and even I can’t get a bead on where this is going.

All I know is that we’re ultimately going to lose. But then, that doesn’t take a genius to figure out.
Oh they did not beg for anything. AQ admitted what they did. It's what they do. They are not a rotary club. The Taliban gave them carte blanche and whored the entire country for them. And they paid a very, very horrid price for it- hope they're happy.

These are NOT nice people. They don't like you.

The goal is the status quo. Three different American presidents have all been in agreement on that. Can't say I am crazy about it, but if you can't turn them into Canada, then maybe keeping them from becoming a huge terrorist base makes some sense.

Afghanistan really does not function as a country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,180,106 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ1988 View Post
We lost the day we stepped over there, just like we did Iraq. Bush2 and his failed wars cost us big time.
And if your Geo-Political Strategy plays out to fruition, Bush will be the next President on Mount Rushmore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2018, 04:33 PM
 
30,455 posts, read 21,298,747 times
Reputation: 12005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
And if your Geo-Political Strategy plays out to fruition, Bush will be the next President on Mount Rushmore.
Shocked Obamabutt did not have the other faces blown away and had his ugly mug to replace them all put up there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:05 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top