Afghanistan
Comments
-
Yes you are right. Which I realised when I remembered troops wearing blue helmets. Also thinking about my Son in law going to Cyprus 2 years ago for the UN rather than NATO.wallace_and_gromit said:
It's usually the UN rather than NATO that fails in this respect e.g. Srebrenica as it's the UN that gets charged with "peace-keeping". NATO's objective is to see of military threats to its members, which it does fairly effectively.webboo said:
They appear not to have managed to prevent some horrendous war crimes being committed.rick_chasey said:
In my mind they were ultimately successful in the Balkans/ Kosovo but TBH I don't actaully know.pblakeney said:Just out of curiosity, can anyone name a time when NATO have been effective?
0 -
Cyprus is OP TOSCA for the British, UN peace keeping which is why everyone has blue berets, helmets and you get a UN gong. Same as all the stuff in Africa.
Bosnia was UN.
Don't confuse the two organisations UN/NATO.
Afghan was OP HERRICK for the British, made up of coalition forces (NATO led but with contributing partners under the ISAF umbrella) which is why the Philipinos and all that mad stuff was there..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Quite a punchy opener in the economist.JOE BIDEN may have more foreign-policy experience than any American president in 30 years, but he is haunted by the brutal assessment of his judgment by Robert Gates, who was secretary of defence under the president both men served, Barack Obama. Mr Gates called Mr Biden “a man of integrity” whom it was impossible not to like. Yet, writing in “Duty”, his memoir, he added: “I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign-policy and national-security issue over the past four decades.”
https://www.economist.com/united-states/america-may-pay-dearly-for-defeat-in-afghanistan/218036100 -
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable and then leave and have everything run smoothly.rick_chasey said:
This is probably fair.Pross said:There seems to be a large crossover between the people who are saying how dreadful it is that the US and its allies have abandoned the Afghan people and those who have spent the last 20 years saying how it bad it is that the US and its allies were occupying Afghanistan and should withdraw as soon as possible, leaving them to Govern themselves.
The nuance is “don’t go invading countries and enacting regime change but if you do, make sure you do it properly”
This feels like the worst of both worlds
Not sure if they ever left Grenada
Do you count them as invading Libya and the outcome being a success?
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.0 -
Did he disagree with the USA policy under Gates in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?0
-
The article says something like he disagreed with the first Iraq war, but agreed with the second. Can't remember about Libya and Afghanistan.kingstongraham said:Did he disagree with the USA policy under Gates in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
0 -
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.0 -
0
-
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.
0 -
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
And they are all lunatics..
The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
despite the sinking of the Lusitania he did not want US troops mobilisedkingstongraham said:Did he disagree with the USA policy under Gates in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya?
0 -
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.0 -
Sheer numbers, yes, but I'm not sure how they would mobilise them short of walking. Properly trained and equipped, very unlikely. Backing by Russia, very unlikely. Backing by China, definitely not for an attack, perhaps as a defensive buffer.MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
They aren't going to nuke the south, they consider it their own country.
The ideological force is about as strong as the Sadam loving that went on in Iraq. It will quickly go.Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
What could anyone gain from picking a fight?1 -
Not at all. Kuwait was attacked, Kuwait was defended. Seems legitimate to me. Or are you saying that the Kuwaiti government was put in place by the US and there was considerable opposition to the US defending the country?surrey_commuter said:
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.0 -
I was using Kuwait as a successful example of invading a country, enacting regime change and then leaving.TheBigBean said:
Not at all. Kuwait was attacked, Kuwait was defended. Seems legitimate to me. Or are you saying that the Kuwaiti government was put in place by the US and there was considerable opposition to the US defending the country?surrey_commuter said:
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.0 -
No, it doesn't count then.surrey_commuter said:
I was using Kuwait as a successful example of invading a country, enacting regime change and then leaving.TheBigBean said:
Not at all. Kuwait was attacked, Kuwait was defended. Seems legitimate to me. Or are you saying that the Kuwaiti government was put in place by the US and there was considerable opposition to the US defending the country?surrey_commuter said:
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.0 -
They didn't change the Kuwait government though unless I am missing something.surrey_commuter said:
I was using Kuwait as a successful example of invading a country, enacting regime change and then leaving.TheBigBean said:
Not at all. Kuwait was attacked, Kuwait was defended. Seems legitimate to me. Or are you saying that the Kuwaiti government was put in place by the US and there was considerable opposition to the US defending the country?surrey_commuter said:
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.0 -
Google says their army is around 2 million if you include reserves - do we really not have that may bullets?MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Good read. A couple of minor points it misses. Firstly, on 9/9 the king of the north (Ahmad Shah Massoud) was assassinated by Al-Qaeda . This wasn't a coincidence at all. This significantly strengthened the Taliban and weakened the Northern Alliance. As a result, the option of sending in a few missiles, so the Northern Alliance would win may not have been there.kingstongraham said:This is a good "Biden and Trump were right" article.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/afghan-war
Secondly, Korea has conscription, so every adult male spends two years in the military. This means that pure dollar spending isn't necessarily comparable.0 -
Protests, according to a tweet on the BBC, in Jalabad about not wanting to change the flag.0
-
my memory is that Iraq overan the whole country and then the "west" invaded and enacted regime change and left.TheBigBean said:
They didn't change the Kuwait government though unless I am missing something.surrey_commuter said:
I was using Kuwait as a successful example of invading a country, enacting regime change and then leaving.TheBigBean said:
Not at all. Kuwait was attacked, Kuwait was defended. Seems legitimate to me. Or are you saying that the Kuwaiti government was put in place by the US and there was considerable opposition to the US defending the country?surrey_commuter said:
does Kuwait count?TheBigBean said:
*You missed out a bit here. Get the regime to invite you to provide security thereby legitimising your occupation of a country. Classify anyone who objects to the legal occupation as an insurgent or terrorist. Repeat until no one other than the insurgents and terrorists question the legitimacy. Then leave...surrey_commuter said:
I suppose it depends upon whether you think it is possible to invade a country, enact regime change to one you find favourable* and then leave and have everything run smoothly.
Now I think about it I doubt they have left0 -
Reading a bit more about this, it seems the flag is a serious point and something there is a lot of passion about.TheBigBean said:Protests, according to a tweet on the BBC, in Jalabad about not wanting to change the flag.
0 -
BBTheBigBean said:
Sheer numbers, yes, but I'm not sure how they would mobilise them short of walking. Properly trained and equipped, very unlikely. Backing by Russia, very unlikely. Backing by China, definitely not for an attack, perhaps as a defensive buffer.MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
They aren't going to nuke the south, they consider it their own country.
The ideological force is about as strong as the Sadam loving that went on in Iraq. It will quickly go.Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
What could anyone gain from picking a fight?
Soz, but you're wrong.
They are trained, equipped, ready to mobilise. The whole country is on a constant war footing.
Russia, China, Iran will give them everything they want.
Backing by Russia - you say no. Seriously? What do you think the Russians have been doing for the past 20 odd years?
The ideological force has been there for generations, Sadaam was a few years held together by terror. This lot genuinly believe it all.
And if the Americans go in for the South they will do whatever they need to do to get at the Americans..
BB, you've said above you have very limited knowledge of all this. Without sounding awful, and I apologise if I do, some people on here have briefings on this stuff on a regular basis. I'd go with them..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
North Korea is nothing more than a useful buffer country between China and a very westernised country of South Korea. It serves the Chinese interests to keep North Korea in power as they don't have a western rival on their doorstep and North Korea is so insignificant that it can't really do anything bad to China. It is win win for China and saps a lot of US energy and money for very little downside.1
-
A bit extreme but I see where your coming from. Trying to sort out the Stani's is like trying to graffiti a penis on Jupiter.photonic69 said:
3,500 coalition deaths 2001 - 2021Equal to Robocop
15,000 USSR deaths 1979 - 1989 More than the Terminator
Afghan civillian and military deaths around 104,000 That even beats Topper Harley!
Anyone with any sense could have told you exactly what would happen, yet the West seems surprised by the resuargance of the Taliban. It's like taking your thumb off a hose pipe that was leaking. You ain't fixed it. It still leaks but now a little worse.
Unrest has been going on in that area for over 1,000 years. It will never be solved by external intervention. Manage it from outside if you can. If you can't then nuke 'em.
0 -
As in, "why would you spend that much to do that"?0
-
correct.pangolin said:
Google says their army is around 2 million if you include reserves - do we really not have that may bullets?MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
we have buggerall. we don't even have enough boots, rifles, field dressings or tourniquets.
and what we do have - well, most is totalrubbish. Boots that fall apart anyone? One size fits no one clothing? Land Rovers? Ffs, Land Rovers....
why do you think everyone buys their own stuff?
do people honestly believe the British military is well equipped and funded?
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Britain has c. 250 out of date Chally 2s, many of which are broken and/or outdated.
NK has c 4,500 main battle tanks.
Even if, say, 60% of them are broken its still scary..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
We come at this from different angles, and whilst you will undoubtedly have more knowledge of military things, I suspect I have greater knowledge of Korea. I have been both sides of the border and, as I said, I really doubt many in the north will put much effort into fighting if the core is defeated, so the size of the standing army is somewhat irrelevant.MattFalle said:
BBTheBigBean said:
Sheer numbers, yes, but I'm not sure how they would mobilise them short of walking. Properly trained and equipped, very unlikely. Backing by Russia, very unlikely. Backing by China, definitely not for an attack, perhaps as a defensive buffer.MattFalle said:
eh? seriously? sorry, but you're massively wrong.TheBigBean said:
Many Koreans have long objected to the presence of US troops; however, the success of the Taliban has made them question whether they too could be overrun and whether, perhaps, they should be a bit more grateful. Personally, I think there is almost no chance the north would try to invade and no chance they would do so successfully. Not least because their army is much more like the Afghan one - large in theory, low in willingness to fight.surrey_commuter said:
It was a success in half of Korea but have not really left.
NK would crush anyone by sheer weight of numbers, a properly trained and equipped army, massive backing by Russia and China and sheer ideological force by in the military and the general populace.
Plus they have nuclear weapons, even if they a bitshit.
We worked it out and if every bullet the British Army had hit its target and took it out you still couldn't take out the NK army.
Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
Completely totally the opposite of ANA. They are/were just totesshit.
They aren't going to nuke the south, they consider it their own country.
The ideological force is about as strong as the Sadam loving that went on in Iraq. It will quickly go.Why do you think no one wants to pick a fight with them?
What could anyone gain from picking a fight?
Soz, but you're wrong.
They are trained, equipped, ready to mobilise. The whole country is on a constant war footing.
Russia, China, Iran will give them everything they want.
Backing by Russia - you say no. Seriously? What do you think the Russians have been doing for the past 20 odd years?
The ideological force has been there for generations, Sadaam was a few years held together by terror. This lot genuinly believe it all.
And if the Americans go in for the South they will do whatever they need to do to get at the Americans..
BB, you've said above you have very limited knowledge of all this. Without sounding awful, and I apologise if I do, some people on here have briefings on this stuff on a regular basis. I'd go with them.
I'm sure military briefings would have been confident of victory in Afghanistan 20 years ago, but anyone who had spent much time in the region would have told you that it really wouldn't be easy.0
