|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 30, 2011 3:42:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Oct 30, 2011 4:17:55 GMT -5
We had a similar thing happen at Fort Hood. It just... you should not be killed by deliberate 'friendly fire'.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 30, 2011 4:39:35 GMT -5
As I've said before, it's nice that 3 killed is the worst days' fighting in decades. It's nice that we can fit the names of all our war dead on three walls in Canberra.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 30, 2011 5:14:32 GMT -5
As I've said before, it's nice that 3 killed is the worst days' fighting in decades. It's nice that we can fit the names of all our war dead on three walls in Canberra. This wasn't fighting, this was murder.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 30, 2011 10:53:06 GMT -5
As I've said before, it's nice that 3 killed is the worst days' fighting in decades. It's nice that we can fit the names of all our war dead on three walls in Canberra. What the fuck is up with you? Your reaction is essentially "I'm glad this doesn't happen more often." True, but not appropriate in this context. On topic: This isn't the first time something like this happened, although I can't remember the specifics (and I'm not referring to the Fort Hood incident, it was in Afghanistan).
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 30, 2011 17:12:11 GMT -5
As I've said before, it's nice that 3 killed is the worst days' fighting in decades. It's nice that we can fit the names of all our war dead on three walls in Canberra. What the fuck is up with you? People got killed in war. No shit. The ANA isn't trustworthy- knew that. Should we withdraw? Well, I've already said that*. So, I tried to say something nice, and the nicest thing I could think of was that only three dozen Australians have been killed so far. That's, like, very small. *I think we should withdraw because we're not achieving shit, not because it's too costly in blood. We could stay there 50 years and achieve nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Oct 30, 2011 17:42:07 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what we're trying to achieve over there anymore. Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaida has been reduced to ruins, the government is friendly to our corporate interests, it seems like we've achieved all of our goals. Traditionally when the war is over, you end it. The current plan seems to be to just stay at war forever against an ambiguous enemy that can never be clearly identified, much less killed. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 30, 2011 17:48:54 GMT -5
That is very tragic...
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 30, 2011 17:52:21 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what we're trying to achieve over there anymore. Because without the forces from America and Co keeping the less America-friendly people from seizing political power, the current government wouldn't last a month. In any case, I have to agree with Fred here. Those troops are over there as occupiers, of course the general population will be trying to kill them. If they weren't there wouldn't be any need for them to be there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 30, 2011 18:00:11 GMT -5
I'm not even sure what we're trying to achieve over there anymore. Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaida has been reduced to ruins, the government is friendly to our corporate interests, it seems like we've achieved all of our goals. Traditionally when the war is over, you end it. The current plan seems to be to just stay at war forever against an ambiguous enemy that can never be clearly identified, much less killed. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me. It will only be truly safe for corporate investment when the natural gas pipeline can be built through the country without attack by the Taliban. I'm not even sure what we're trying to achieve over there anymore. Because without the forces from America and Co keeping the less America-friendly people from seizing political power, the current government wouldn't last a month. Is that true, though? The Taliban took years to win the first Civil War, and they were better armed than their opponents and had Pakistani aid. Maybe they're more popular now, but I'm not sure that's true. After all, Islamic fundamentalism isn't indigenous to Afghanistan- the most popular ideology in the aftermath of the Monarchy was communism, even without soviet involvement. Frankly, Afghanistan is going to be won in the backrooms of Islamabad. The really important battle here is between India and Pakistan, or rather between Pakistani fundamentalism and peace. The US should have used it's considerable leverage to nip Pakistani Islamic fundamentalism in the bud in 1980 (and they should have forced them to get over their war with India). Now it's going to be difficult to exorcise the Intelligence agencies and the government from its crazy fundamentalism*, and shooting another thousand Taliban in Helmand is not going to help. In fact, it may make it worse (by scaring them across the border into Pakistan). * In the 80s, Pakistan decided that Islamic fundamentalists would make good insurgents to fight the Indian army. This policy eventually infected the state organs that administrated their policy of arming Islamic terrorists with the ideology of said terrorists. Now the ISI is essentially part of the Taliban.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 30, 2011 18:11:00 GMT -5
Is that true, though? The Taliban took years to win the first Civil War, and they were better armed than their opponents. Maybe they're more popular now, but I'm not sure that's true. After all, Islamic fundamentalism isn't indigenous to Afghanistan- the most popular ideology in the aftermath of the Monarchy was communism, even without soviet involvement. I may've been exaggerating a little in terms of the government's life-expectancy. Still, I think we can agree that it wouldn't exactly have a bright future without the Americans keeping them in power.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Oct 30, 2011 19:41:36 GMT -5
The US should have used it's considerable leverage to nip Pakistani Islamic fundamentalism in the bud in 1980 (and they should have forced them to get over their war with India). Now it's going to be difficult to exorcise the Intelligence agencies and the government from its crazy fundamentalism*, and shooting another thousand Taliban in Helmand is not going to help. In fact, it may make it worse (by scaring them across the border into Pakistan). We were a bit too busy in dick waving contests with the Soviets to do anything like that. Also arming the mujaheddin. That worked out well. I don't know what is best for the Afghan people, but I'm pretty damn sure that us fucking around with them isn't it. The poor bastards have had enough foreign around-fucking to last them a couple of millennium. Just leave them alone and see if we can't rebuild our own country at least.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Oct 30, 2011 23:30:56 GMT -5
As I've said before, it's nice that 3 killed is the worst days' fighting in decades. It's nice that we can fit the names of all our war dead on three walls in Canberra. What the fuck is up with you? Your reaction is essentially "I'm glad this doesn't happen more often." True, but not appropriate in this context. On topic: This isn't the first time something like this happened, although I can't remember the specifics (and I'm not referring to the Fort Hood incident, it was in Afghanistan). Are you thinking of the rioting over quran destruction by that fucker priest down south that ended up getting UN people shot?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 31, 2011 0:06:36 GMT -5
What the fuck is up with you? Your reaction is essentially "I'm glad this doesn't happen more often." True, but not appropriate in this context. On topic: This isn't the first time something like this happened, although I can't remember the specifics (and I'm not referring to the Fort Hood incident, it was in Afghanistan). Are you thinking of the rioting over quran destruction by that fucker priest down south that ended up getting UN people shot? I think he's thinking of the Australian cook who was shot by the Afghan guard a couple of months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 31, 2011 12:23:08 GMT -5
|
|