Poll
Question:
Hindsight 10/10, taking into account all you know today and assuming things play out exactly the same, would you want the US to invade Iraq and Afghanistan?
Option 1: Iraq: Yes, Afghanistan: Yes
votes: 10
Option 2: Iraq: No, Afghanistan: Yes
votes: 26
Option 3: Iraq: Yes, Afghanistan: No
votes: 1
Option 4: Iraq: No, Afghanistan: No
votes: 6
Assume it's early 2000s, but you know everything that will happen in the upcoming decade, including the global financial crisis and the Euro crisis, and assume that both wars (and indeed, all events in the world) play out exactly the same as they did during the 2000-2012 period. Would you want the US to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Yes
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 02:25:07 AM
Assume it's early 2000s, but you know everything that will happen in the upcoming decade, including the global financial crisis and the Euro crisis, and assume that both wars (and indeed, all events in the world) play out exactly the same as they did during the 2000-2012 period. Would you want the US to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Wait, I voted before I read your unnuanced question.
I would for Afghanistan regardless of consequences because, you know, they attacked us; Iraq, yes, but not with the lack of funding.
Actually, if I'm back in 2001, I have $50,000 in capital, and I know what the markets are going to do, who gives a shit about Afghanistan or Iraq or the great recession? Maybe you proles. I'm fucking rich motherfuckers.
I would parking lot them, not invade them.
Don't invade Iraq. Special forces and air strikes to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, then leave.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2012, 02:59:46 AM
Special forces and air strikes to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, then leave.
Rinse and repeat?
Iraq, obviously no. That was stupid, hindsight or no hindsight. As for Afghanistan, knowing how futile nation-building would turn out to be in a stone age country, I would just focus on fucking up the Taliban with as little direct involvement and investment as possible. Punish them as an example, but otherwise stay the hell out of that cesspit.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2012, 02:59:46 AM
Don't invade Iraq. Special forces and air strikes to drive the Taliban out of Afghanistan, then leave.
Ditto. Save all the post-9/11 international street cred for action against Iran.
Attack Afghanistan, ignore Iraq.
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
That's not an option in this poll.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2012, 03:08:40 AM
Iraq, obviously no. That was stupid, hindsight or no hindsight. As for Afghanistan, knowing how futile nation-building would turn out to be in a stone age country, I would just focus on fucking up the Taliban with as little direct involvement and investment as possible. Punish them as an example, but otherwise stay the hell out of that cesspit.
This.
Iraq, no. Afghanistan, yes.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:35:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
That's not an option in this poll.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheupsidedownworld.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F11%2Freality.jpg&hash=380b74a7a12689a789ca5af8b60af8c4663a34af)
I wanted my war with Iran, dammit. :mad:
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
Afghanistan, yes, but a different approach: kick the hell out of the Taliban and AQ in the same manner as before. But, at Bonn, invite the Taliban to be part of Afghanistan's political future in some way, rather than freezing them out completely and having them sit in the FATA regrouping. Alternatively, have international nation-building efforts actually gather steam before a revitalised insurgency takes off in 2005/06.
Iraq, something would need to be done about Saddam but outright invasion was a bad idea. Use Iraq invasion resources on Afghanistan instead.
Quote from: Warspite on June 10, 2012, 09:43:41 AM
Iraq, something would need to be done about Saddam but outright invasion was a bad idea.
Operation Northern Watch/Southern Watch was motoring along just fine, thank you. Nothing needed to be done.
Although, I do find it ironical, in the early debates of countering anti-invasion criticism, the GOPtards were using the "wasteful" costs of NW/SW containment as an argument to invade. Interesting how, $3.7 trillion later and a lot of dead troops, nobody mentions that now.
QuoteUse Iraq invasion resources on Afghanistan Iran instead.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2012, 02:54:04 PM
QuoteUse Iraq invasion resources on Afghanistan Iran America instead.
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, parking lot.
Quote from: Scipio on June 10, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, parking lot.
What about the dual-parking lot strategy? :hmm:
Only if we can add Pakistan in the mix.
Quote from: katmai on June 10, 2012, 06:25:18 PM
Only if we can add Pakistan in the mix.
I don't like odd numbers. :mad:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 10, 2012, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 10, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, parking lot.
What about the dual-parking lot strategy? :hmm:
You know, while that strategy is good for the air force, I'm not sure it encourages them to hire more linguists. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 10, 2012, 06:26:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 10, 2012, 06:23:52 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 10, 2012, 06:08:23 PM
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, parking lot.
What about the dual-parking lot strategy? :hmm:
You know, while that strategy is good for the air force, I'm not sure it encourages them to hire more linguists. :hmm:
Someone has to go through the spreadsheets to determine how many bombers per economic center, and they are often written in foreignese.
This poll is stupid. What's the point of talking about hindsight if you are going to ignore it anyway?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 11, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
This poll is stupid. What's the point of talking about hindsight if you are going to ignore it anyway?
It's Languish.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2012, 01:42:01 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 11, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
This poll is stupid. What's the point of talking about hindsight if you are going to ignore it anyway?
It's Languish.
And it's a Marty poll to boot. That is like Languish x Languish.
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2012, 07:35:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
That's not an option in this poll.
The poll is pointless then. there is no doubt the two operations have been a failure. You may argue that they were not pre-determined to be failures, but if you are not allowing to speculate based on hindsight, this is the worst poll ever in the history of Languish.
Voted no on both. Attacking Al Qaida and the Taleban in 2001 and 2002 was obviously necessary and it was right in hindsight too. But the ten years in Afghanistan after that were a mistake in hindsight.
Quote from: Berkut on June 11, 2012, 01:49:58 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2012, 01:42:01 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 11, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
This poll is stupid. What's the point of talking about hindsight if you are going to ignore it anyway?
It's Languish.
And it's a Marty poll to boot. That is like Languish x Languish.
In your formula (Languish x Languish), is Languish the constant or variable? :D
23 people on Languish support fascism. JAPAN YES; GERMANY NO
Well, considering Hitler declared war on us first it didn't matter.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 11, 2012, 03:10:06 AM
Well, considering Hitler declared war on us first it didn't matter.
Only because we were fighting an undeclared war on him in the Atlantic. NO BLOOD FOR JEWS.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2012, 02:45:19 AM
23 people on Languish support fascism. JAPAN YES; GERMANY NO
C'mon man, what do you expect? A forum predominantly stacked over-educated snot-nosed white boys, whose only base connection is a Swedish video game from 10 years ago?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 06:07:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2012, 02:45:19 AM
23 people on Languish support fascism. JAPAN YES; GERMANY NO
C'mon man, what do you expect? A forum predominantly stacked over-educated snot-nosed white boys, whose only base connection is a Swedish video game from 10 years ago?
I have never played EU...... :blink:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 11, 2012, 06:23:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 06:07:04 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 11, 2012, 02:45:19 AM
23 people on Languish support fascism. JAPAN YES; GERMANY NO
C'mon man, what do you expect? A forum predominantly stacked over-educated snot-nosed white boys, whose only base connection is a Swedish video game from 10 years ago?
I have never played EU...... :blink:
I said "predominantly". Whitey. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2012, 06:51:44 AM
Save all the post-9/11 international street cred for action against Iran.
That had an expiration date, and a short one at that (Iraq or no Iraq). Unless you were thinking about doing the Iran thing around the same timeframe as Iraq.
Voted yes & yes, but I don't like the question. We pretty much had to do the Afghanistan thing, but I don't think we needed to stay as long as we have. I also think invading Iraq was the correct thing to do given Saddam's provocations, violations of the terms of our ceasefire with him, etc. but disagree with the neocon post-invasion plan.
There was no choice for Afghanistan. Yes. But do it differently.
Iraq though no. In hindsight we know there were no WMDs and it perhaps even slowed down the democracy movement in the middle east.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Unless you were thinking about doing the Iran thing around the same timeframe as Iraq.
Yes, I am. The "Axis of Evil" speech set the stage as a direct policy statement with historical implications. Want to stop terrorism? You go straight for the biggest state sponsor. And uncovering and verifying the facilities at Natanz and Arak through 2002-3 with European assistance and IAEA credibility was just the icing on top.
Bush had the opportunity to reposition the US with the greatest post-Cold War US foreign policy initiative imaginable, with the absolute moral authority on two of the most justifiable international security concerns in today's world: addressing the state actors that actively support terrorism, and enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. It doesn't get much more international than that.
But no. Never had so much international support and sympathy had been pissed away so completely by going after Iraq. Goddamned shame, really.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Unless you were thinking about doing the Iran thing around the same timeframe as Iraq.
Yes, I am. The "Axis of Evil" speech set the stage as a direct policy statement with historical implications. Want to stop terrorism? You go straight for the biggest state sponsor. And uncovering and verifying the facilities at Natanz and Arak through 2002-3 with European assistance and IAEA credibility was just the icing on top.
Bush had the opportunity to reposition the US with the greatest post-Cold War US foreign policy initiative imaginable, with the absolute moral authority on two of the most justifiable international security concerns in today's world: addressing the state actors that actively support terrorism, and enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. It doesn't get much more international than that.
But no. Never had so much international support and sympathy had been pissed away so completely by going after Iraq. Goddamned shame, really.
Okay, so let's hear some details for your 2003 plan to deal with Iran.
My opinion is the same as it was then. Don't invade Iraq, do what you have to do to get rid of the Taliban and hit bin Laden.
Iraq no, Afghanistan yes.
In hindsight, the cost for Iraq was not worth the payoff.
On the other hand, if we are using hindsight, chances are we could have reduced the cost considerably with a less completely non-existent post-war plan...so who knows, really.
Actually, with 20/20 hindsight, I would just have bombed the terror camps in Afghanistan in 2000 and arrested the fucks in Hamburg. :P
Quote from: Zanza on June 11, 2012, 12:12:02 PM
Actually, with 20/20 hindsight, I would just have bombed the terror camps in Afghanistan in 2000 and arrested the fucks in Hamburg. :P
How would the precogs have responded to a war, anyway? Did it have to be legal murder? That seems arbitrary.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Unless you were thinking about doing the Iran thing around the same timeframe as Iraq.
Yes, I am. The "Axis of Evil" speech set the stage as a direct policy statement with historical implications. Want to stop terrorism? You go straight for the biggest state sponsor. And uncovering and verifying the facilities at Natanz and Arak through 2002-3 with European assistance and IAEA credibility was just the icing on top.
Bush had the opportunity to reposition the US with the greatest post-Cold War US foreign policy initiative imaginable, with the absolute moral authority on two of the most justifiable international security concerns in today's world: addressing the state actors that actively support terrorism, and enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. It doesn't get much more international than that.
But no. Never had so much international support and sympathy had been pissed away so completely by going after Iraq. Goddamned shame, really.
Okay, so let's hear some details for your 2003 plan to deal with Iran.
I would start with you skullfucking a dead fetus in its caved-in cranium on pay-per-view, fucknut.
But by all means, keep the party line and defend Iraq instead of the alternatives Dubya pissed away. Schmuck.
Hindsight? Let's do "if Ed was President"
1) Nuke Pakistan and Afghanistan.
2) Let 'em starve in Iraq.
3) Naked hot tub party with Condi
Or did I already post in this thread? I can't remember. OMG THE DRUGS
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 03:06:27 PM
I would start with you skullfucking a dead fetus in its caved-in cranium on pay-per-view, fucknut.
But by all means, keep the party line and defend Iraq instead of the alternatives Dubya pissed away. Schmuck.
It was an honest question. Shouldn't be too hard for you to outline President Seedy's plan for smacking down Iran. You've obviously given it a bit of thought.
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 04:21:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 03:06:27 PM
I would start with you skullfucking a dead fetus in its caved-in cranium on pay-per-view, fucknut.
But by all means, keep the party line and defend Iraq instead of the alternatives Dubya pissed away. Schmuck.
It was an honest question. Shouldn't be too hard for you to outline President Seedy's plan for smacking down Iran. You've obviously given it a bit of thought.
Does anyone have a workable plan for that ?
Perhaps the Iranians will turn out to be the 'Vietcong' of the Middle East ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Does anyone have a workable plan for that ?
Didn't have to be any less workable than Iraq.
Without issuing my 145-page treatise on dealing with Iran early in the post-9/11 world, a concentrated international effort in eliminating their support for Hezbollah, combined with political and severe economic pressure on the Iranian government to cease and desist their nuclear ambitions. Don't like it, don't want to play ball? Fine. Punitive, sustained military action in degrading their assets while still pursuing a political track, until they came to the realization that openly supporting terrorism and terrorist proxy wars along with an illicit nuclear program that would not be allowed by the international community would be cost prohibitive. There were a myriad of policy choices available. Imagine how impactful a sustained international effort, economically, politically, and militarily could've been in 2002, 2003, 2005.
For a moment not seen in decades, we had the moral high ground to enforce the will of the international community on Iran, and the political currency back it up with force. All those years of bullshit murder by Hezbollah from Lebanon to Argentina, all those dead Marines in Beirut, the tab that had been running from 1979 would've finally been due. Terrorism
and non-proliferation? You can't lose on that. And that's what the Axis of Evil speech was all about.
But no, the Class of '91 didn't want to hear it. Unfinished business. And completely unnecessary.
QuotePerhaps the Iranians will turn out to be the 'Vietcong' of the Middle East ? :unsure:
They sure as shit aren't going to become the post-war Germans.
Quote from: mongers on June 11, 2012, 08:18:55 PM
Perhaps the Iranians will turn out to be the 'Vietcong' of the Middle East ? :unsure:
The Viet Cong were 'proxies', Iran uses 'proxies'.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 11:28:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 11, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 11, 2012, 09:20:23 AM
Unless you were thinking about doing the Iran thing around the same timeframe as Iraq.
Yes, I am. The "Axis of Evil" speech set the stage as a direct policy statement with historical implications. Want to stop terrorism? You go straight for the biggest state sponsor. And uncovering and verifying the facilities at Natanz and Arak through 2002-3 with European assistance and IAEA credibility was just the icing on top.
Bush had the opportunity to reposition the US with the greatest post-Cold War US foreign policy initiative imaginable, with the absolute moral authority on two of the most justifiable international security concerns in today's world: addressing the state actors that actively support terrorism, and enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. It doesn't get much more international than that.
But no. Never had so much international support and sympathy had been pissed away so completely by going after Iraq. Goddamned shame, really.
Okay, so let's hear some details for your 2003 plan to deal with Iran.
I would start with you skullfucking a dead fetus in its caved-in cranium on pay-per-view, fucknut.
But by all means, keep the party line and defend Iraq instead of the alternatives Dubya pissed away. Schmuck.
If we did things my way, all three Axis members would already be blossoming democracies.
Quote from: Viking on June 10, 2012, 07:17:30 AM
Do both differently competently using hindsight.
This.
Afghanistan you really have no choice with. The USA's hand was forced, and in some ways the least costly strategy is attempting nation building, futile though it may be.
Iraq, fuck no.