What is Digg?272 Comments
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 08/26/2008, -11/+107With no goals to define victory there can be no loss.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -38/+81The civilian casualties say we're winning in the genocide category, just can't seem to kill the enemy.
- 9mmCensor, on 08/26/2008, -9/+43The real source of the problem is in Washington.
- jlhoben, on 08/26/2008, -7/+34Bankrupting America to fight meaningless foreign wars? That is losing.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -6/+29Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
1)The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's minority Tutsis and the moderates of its Hutu majority. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from April 6 through to mid July, at least 500,000 people were killed. Most estimates are of a death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000.
2)A Man-Made Famine raged through Ukraine, the ethnic-Ukrainian region of northern Caucasus (i.e. Kuban), and the lower Volga River region in 1932-33. This resulted in the death of between 7 to 10 million people, mainly Ukrainians. This was instigated by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his henchman Lazar Kaganovich
3)In April 1992, the U.S. and European Community chose to recognize the independence of Bosnia, a mostly Muslim country where the Serb minority made up 32 percent of the population. Milosevic responded to Bosnia's declaration of independence by attacking Sarajevo, its capital city, best known for hosting the 1984 Winter Olympics. Sarajevo soon became known as the city where Serb snipers continually shot down helpless civilians in the streets, including eventually over 3,500 children. In Srebrenica, a Safe Haven, U.N. peacekeepers stood by helplessly as the Serbs under the command of General Ratko Mladic systematically selected and then slaughtered nearly 8,000 men and boys between the ages of twelve and sixty - the worst mass murder in Europe since World War II. In addition, the Serbs continued to engage in mass rapes of Muslim females. On August 30, 1995, effective military intervention finally began as the U.S. led a massive NATO bombing campaign in response to the killings at Srebrenica, targeting Serbian artillery positions throughout Bosnia.
Are you equating REAL genocide with a few accidental civilian Afghan casualties that the coalition of 65 countries fighting the Taliban have caused? Because if you are - then you are a ***** retarded dope smoking idiot with the education of a 5th grader as evidenced by your vocabulary, use of inflammatory wording , and downright stupidity!! - phalanxcronos, on 08/27/2008, -8/+31Afghanistan was not preemptive.
- GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -2/+22Or any victory for that matter.
- num3thod, on 08/26/2008, -4/+22Sorry...what? I can't make any sense of that sentence.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -67/+86The answer is no.
- Wargalas, on 08/27/2008, -7/+24Try to follow world history Ghosty. Afghanistan wasn't invade pre-emptively. If you can't keep track of the wars, just remember Afghanistan = good war. You remember Osama right?
- borez, on 08/26/2008, -1/+17Interesting thumbnail you picked there
- Harabeck, on 08/26/2008, -1/+17"and a rush on a U.S. outpost last month by 200 militants that killed nine Americans."
That tells us nothing without a count of enemy combatants killed, or the total number of Americans at the outpost... But at first glance, it seems to me that needing 200 to kill 9 does not indicate much competency. - outreach417, on 08/26/2008, -11/+26There is no win win solution in Afghanistan. Not for NATO, USA, Canada or the Afghans themselves...
http://digg.com/world_news/Canadian_Troops_Kill_Tw ...
and
http://missionlog.wordpress.com/commentary/archive ... - 0dnj0, on 08/26/2008, -3/+18with heroin exports sky rocketing since we got there id say somebody is winning
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -5/+19@markgl
Where did you get your extensive understanding of Afghanistan and the political, military and cultural realities there that inform you state unequivocally that "The taliban will never have control again. there."?
We are destined to lose. It is now a war of attrition. Like so many times before in the history of Afghanistan the resistance has come together slowly, like the tide coming in. However, this tide won't go back out.
Everywhere outside of our big bases and Kabul, the NATO troops and all foreigners are in enemy territory. The President of Afghanistan can't leave Kabul. We continue to coalesce the resistance to our occupation by killing women and children.
There is no way to win. And there is no way to out-wait the Afghans. They have a 2500 year history, they are not in a hurry. They will continue to snipe and bomb and disappear into the mountains. Occaisionally they organize and kill a handful, a dozen NATO troops, they kill Afghan troops and police and officials that have accepted the foreigners money.
We are not going to lose. We already lost. - inactive, on 08/26/2008, -11/+23One of these days, I'm sure you'll actually manage to make a factual statement about me.
However I won't hold my breath. - wadge22, on 08/26/2008, -1/+13So the country with WMDs aplenty, ICBMs, jet fighters, nuclear subs, cluster bombs, apache helicopters, aircraft carriers, tanks, a large standing army, and near unlimited resources could kill a bunch of people with only black-market weapons and no formal organization? Remarkable!
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -13/+24Genocide....lol
- Waiting2awake, on 08/26/2008, -9/+20It is just a horrible situation all way around. A very sober lesson in what we, the citizenry, let our jobs slide and stopped watching the Government, that allowed these crimes to happen.
Keep in mind - has anyone seen any evidense that that who we think did 911 actually did it? The Taliban offered OBL to the US, if they would show any - the US refused. - bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -1/+12@lztikeit
So America has decided that Afghanistan should have the biggest opium/heroin crops in their history?
Awesome. - GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -38/+49Actually the answer is yes.
When you pre-emptively invade a nation and continue to occupy it long after your fabricated justification for being there has expired, then regardless of any degree of success you may achieve on a particular mission, you are still a loser. - GhostyBoy, on 08/27/2008, -1/+11@th3heretic:
From his website you *****:
barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
"the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan" - rhoman23, on 08/27/2008, -2/+12Ya know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.
- GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -8/+18To be fair, America was defeated the moment it allowed itself to become involved in these stupid oil wars for the rich.
- lorem1000, on 08/26/2008, -1/+11Which is the fundamental reason why wars on generalities are failures. Terror? Drugs? You can't admit defeat when you don't have to stop fighting if you don't want to.
- DreadPirate, on 08/26/2008, -11/+21"And now you lack the balls to even stand up and defend it." CRC, does it hurt to be as hypocritical as you are? You have never "stood up and defended" any of your statements in your entire time on Digg, even as MightyDaveFish. You're just another pathetic liberal coward.
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -3/+12How odd, I could of sworn that Afghanistan was a NATO operation.
- Hortnon, on 08/26/2008, -2/+11The facility I worked in happens to be the "greenest building in the DoD", with solar panels, custom ventilation, crazy waterless urinals, and all that "stuff". I don't know if you realize, but the DoD is actually one of the biggest users and proponents of energy efficiency, simply because they have legal requirements to be that way.
@ghosty
I think contractors getting rich is an effect of war, not a cause. I hope, anyway. I don't like companies like Blackwater not only making tons of money off war, but also operating seemingly outside of the scope of the law. Though, I hear the DoD isn't actually very happy with Blackwater lately...
As for the construction contractors...well, someone's gotta do the work. Though, that embassy is pretty ridiculous...
To both of you: Even if the military is the only user of oil...that's a dramatic DECREASE in usage, not an INCREASE. The cost of gas has accelerated research into alternative fuels, has caused people to get more fuel efficient vehicles, drive less, and generally use less gas. Over time, this will only get worse for these companies, and they business on it. - killerpopiller, on 08/26/2008, -2/+11me neither, maybe he wanted to state out, that british colonial troops in the end of 19th century lost, soviets lost and the us will loose to
unfortunatly germany is as well there :( for no apparent reason - ahsen74, on 08/26/2008, -4/+12FTA:
"U.S. critics of the Afghan government are becoming increasingly vocal. Rep. Jim Marshall, a Georgia Democrat who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said last week that Karzai's government "is not nearly where it should be."
"I'm not willing to have a long-term U.S. commitment, a substantial U.S. commitment to Afghanistan without seeing substantial reform and improvement in the government," Marshall said on a visit to Kabul."
-----
What he did not say was that the lack of a functioning central government is largely due to our (US) actions in the two tears following the invasion of Afghanistan. We enabled warlords instead the central govt. Read "Descent Into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid (http://www.amazon.com/Descent-into-Chaos-Building- ... - stonewaljacksn, on 08/27/2008, -1/+9We can't "win" because winning now means "successfully imposing our culture onto them." It's kind of like a modern crusades, except the new religion is American vision of "the right way to live, the right principles to follow, etc." =Democracy, capitalism ("practice whatever religion you want, let them all become relative to each other, because the new defining, collective principles that ALL Americans will follow are those of Democracy and capitalism." THAT is what has taken the place of the "National Worldview", so to speak, that religion once held).
We will never consider them "stable" unless they are living by our rules, and a hell of a lot of dead empires throughout history felt the same way about nations they "conquered." It just doesn't work. You would think that by this point in history, the damn Ivy League graduates who are bred to be presidents and policymakers would understand the need to coexist with other cultures instead of superimposing our lifestyle onto theirs. Of COURSE we are SURE our style is better...they feel the same about theirs!
Regardless, the Soviets tried it too..and what happened?.
and yeah, sorry, but buried for the ridiculous Obama plug and the title. - GhostyBoy, on 08/26/2008, -4/+12Obama advocates this idiotic war.
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -6/+14This is not genocide. Thank you use2bacanadian for the actual definition, and I also have something to add.
Our enemy, terrorists, come in all shapes and forms. They were no official uniforms and may or may not be part of a bigger faction. I believe that a very large number of civilians killed in Afghanistan and Iraq are the product of the terrorists' cowardly tactics. They hide in cities amongst innocent civilians, they plant roadside bombs and IEDs, rig cars with explosives, and at times have even used people as human shields.
I'm not above admitting that some of the civilian deaths had nothing to do with the terrorists (besides the fact that the war on terror is why we're there), but to be honest, terrorists are fickle bitches, and it can be very, very hard to tell a civilian from a militant unless they're pointing an AK 47 at you. - warsongs7, on 08/27/2008, -0/+7The Moguls were the only ones in recent history that had control of the territory but even they had to relinquish control of the mountainous areas to the tribes.
- Bagos1, on 08/26/2008, -11/+18Historically, really, who from modern civilization and thought has won Afghanistan.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7Source of what problem and why will no one say what is to gain there? Even the USSR got free of that. Shouldn't we be smarter than them?
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -6/+12I normally think of people like CRC, Amiga401 and Tehrooni when I'm taking a *****.
And then I realize that my ***** is worth more than all of their opinions combined - because they haven't said anything yet that could actually be interpreted by human beings other than themselves. - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6That's right Caferrel, only Rambo can save us now...
- sodade, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6The Russians couldn't do it, what makes us think we can?
- ElderBieler, on 08/26/2008, -10/+16CRC is such a piece of trash. He/she makes venomous statements and the runs off to make the take the next Anti-American stance.
Leave it up to those from San Fran to spit on anything doing with America. - skinnyskittles, on 08/26/2008, -1/+7@th3heretic
voting record - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -2/+8Warsongs7, you don't get it. More troops will make it worse. The more we pressure them, the more they will resist us. The only way that more troops would work, would be to start a pitiless, bloody slaughter that killed so many Afghans that the remainder would disappear or give themselves into bondage.
That happened in Afghanistan. Ghengis Khan managed to subdue the Afghans by killing most of them. He would make them run and then play a cavalry game where the runners became the ball. They never finished the game alive. The Afhans now play that game with a goat.
We are too proud and brutal for them to like us and we are not brutal enough for them to fear us. We have already lost the war. Sending more men to kill and die for nothing is a crime and a sin - inactive, on 08/26/2008, -22/+28I'm curious what your definition of "winning" is.
Turning a country against us is rarely considered a win. - DigitalBrian, on 08/27/2008, -3/+8Let me ask another question
Why is the US still wasting our tax money in Afghanistan? - bigstinky, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Regardless the "experience", until the US can get a foothold and send soldiers into mountain tunnels, nobody is going to take Afghanistan anywhere. You can drop a billion dollars in bombs, but all that will be accomplished is smaller mountains. And a nightly Taliban giggle fest. No one will ever change the Taliban's ideology, and that is where the "war" with Afghanistan must be fought. There are some in this country whose arrogance exceeds reality. The world does not always want our help into changing over to a nice cozy lil democracy.
- TheSabre, on 08/27/2008, -4/+9Wait wait wait. When Republicans say that the US is winning in Iraq, the anti-war folks say "you can't fight a war on an abstract; there is no winning." When the Republicans say that the Dems want the US to lose (from Iraq pullout), the anti-war folks say "its an abstract war, you can't lose." But now, when it fits their own personal political view, the anti-war folks come out and say we're losing in Afghanistan. You can't have it both ways.
- mediaspree, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5We haven't heard anything about it on the news (besides the massive killings by US forces today) so its safe too assume things aren't good over there. Where is Osama Bin Laden?
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6Overtime, the oil companies, who by then have gained more control over the world's oil supply via oil wars, will simply loosen the spigot on the oil supply (ie, lower the price) every time it looks like alternatives are making greater strides. At the same time, these oil companies will continue to fund "environmental" groups to help cast their one true and viable competition in a negative and false light - nuclear energy.
Nuclear Energy is cleaner, safer and about 100 times cheaper than oil could ever be, even if oil was traded on a free and open market. But so called "environmental" groups have helped make the public believe that nuclear power plants are dangerous. And they are dangerous ....... after about 60 years. that's why you have to build new ones every 40 to 50 years. But the pubic is lead to believe that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous and nothing can be done to make them safe.
So on we go chasing after the solar power dream while living in an oil war nightmare. - choochee, on 08/27/2008, -2/+7The sooner we admit defeat and stop blowing our tax money on Bush's frat boy project in Afghanistan, the better.
- cheese06, on 08/26/2008, -5/+10U.S and NATO are simply not putting enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Northwestern part of Pakistan is the main issue, with all the cross-border attacks its no wonder why the U.S is "losing" according to this article. Jihadists are flush with cash in Pakistan and rearm in that region.
To simply state, Pakistan is the root problem. -
Show 51 - 100 of 275 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is