My prediction about Afghanistan: as soon as the Americans pull out, the Taliban will overrun the rest of the country (they already control 2/3 of it, despite American military presence) and impose their own regime (again). The negotiated agreement will be ignored and soon forgotten. VietNam reloaded.
04 Apr 20
@moonbus saidAbsolutely correct, moonbus.
My prediction about Afghanistan: as soon as the Americans pull out, the Taliban will overrun the rest of the country (they already control 2/3 of it, despite American military presence) and impose their own regime (again). The negotiated agreement will be ignored and soon forgotten. VietNam reloaded.
you would think that Americans would learn after Vietnam. This Afghanistan engagement was nothing but a cover for an American response to 911 and to make lots of money for the Military Industrial Complex.
20 years, a $trillion spent, lives lost, a country destroyed, and absolutely nothing gained.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 176457
04 Apr 20
@earl-of-trumps saidWell on your home front you did get Trump. 🤔
Absolutely correct, moonbus.
you would think that Americans would learn after Vietnam. This Afghanistan engagement was nothing but a cover for an American response to 911 and to make lots of money for the Military Industrial Complex.
20 years, a $trillion spent, lives lost, a country destroyed, and absolutely nothing gained.
06 Apr 20
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidIt has been an unmitigated disaster, both for Afghans and Americans. Too bad. I was surprised the British got on board, frankly. They had already tried to subdue Helmand Province a century before, took heavy losses, and scurried out with their tails between their legs; they should have known it was a quagmire.
Absolutely correct, moonbus.
you would think that Americans would learn after Vietnam. This Afghanistan engagement was nothing but a cover for an American response to 911 and to make lots of money for the Military Industrial Complex.
20 years, a $trillion spent, lives lost, a country destroyed, and absolutely nothing gained.
I lay the Afghan debacle at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld; they were the nitwits who got America into it. The Soviet Union had unraveled, and Cheney and co. thought America, as the last remaining super-power, could do as it pleased. Blöödy fools.
06 Apr 20
@moonbus saidWell put, moonman, but I think that what they were after was the $trillion dollars spent. And they got all of that. Special interest groups roared with approval.
It has been an unmitigated disaster, both for Afghans and Americans. Too bad. I was surprised the British got on board, frankly. They had already tried to subdue Helmand Province a century before, took heavy losses, and scurried out with their tails between their legs; they should have known it was a quagmire.
I lay the Afghan debacle at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld; th ...[text shortened]... ey and co. thought America, as the last remaining super-power, could do as it pleased. Blöödy fools.
07 Apr 20
@earl-of-trumps saidThere are so many casualties of war, many of whom are not counted.
Well put, moonman, but I think that what they were after was the $trillion dollars spent. And they got all of that. Special interest groups roared with approval.
Here's a timely article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52144859
A cousin of mine was a Ranger in Cambodia (at a time when the U.S. administration was publicly denying there were U.S. forces in Cambodia). He wouldn't talk about his experiences, but he did say that only one movie ever got anywhere near depicting the madness of war: F.F. Coppola's Apocalypse Now ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning" ).
07 Apr 20
@moonbus saidI have heard a lot of theories why the British Government got on board (Many of the British people were in fact anti above and beyond predictable party lines, drawing parallels with Vietnam etc). None of the theories make good reading. One would be the need to maintain a special relationship with U.S. foreign policy as already baulking at the idea the EU was heading for a Federal Europe and needing to maintain relationships with U.S. to survive rejecting Europe economically. The cruder least good one was that our politicians of that era were basically just sucking up to the playground bully and doing whatever was asked to stay friends.
It has been an unmitigated disaster, both for Afghans and Americans. Too bad. I was surprised the British got on board, frankly. They had already tried to subdue Helmand Province a century before, took heavy losses, and scurried out with their tails between their legs; they should have known it was a quagmire.
I lay the Afghan debacle at the feet of Cheney and Rumsfeld; th ...[text shortened]... ey and co. thought America, as the last remaining super-power, could do as it pleased. Blöödy fools.
07 Apr 20
@petewxyz saidYou would have to have been a fly on the wall in Blair's office to know the answer. He won't ever tell the truth about it in public.
I have heard a lot of theories why the British Government got on board (Many of the British people were in fact anti above and beyond predictable party lines, drawing parallels with Vietnam etc). None of the theories make good reading. One would be the need to maintain a special relationship with U.S. foreign policy as already baulking at the idea the EU was heading for a Fe ...[text shortened]... were basically just sucking up to the playground bully and doing whatever was asked to stay friends.
07 Apr 20
@moonbus saidBlair's dishonesty and double standards knew no bounds. Middle East peace envoy and also involved in the arms trade?? The biggest deception of all was calling himself a Labour prime minister. His manifesto did not oppose tuition fees or apply traditional Labour values to taxation or public services. I think that ultimately resulted in the mass defection of voters to Lib Dem who started to claim to be the party of free higher education and higher taxation for the very wealthy only to astound everyone by going into coalition with the Tories. That for me is the true chain of events that gave us Cameron, the worst prime minister in British history, referendum with no plan as to how to action the outcome and political laughing stock of the world. For me Blair was a major contributor to the journey down the toilet, but don't get me started on the 80s and Thatcher, by the end of her cuts we were 50000 doctors short of the number required to have the same per head of population as France......
You would have to have been a fly on the wall in Blair's office to know the answer. He won't ever tell the truth about it in public.
07 Apr 20
@petewxyz
Blair stole the centre ground from the Tories and left the Tories with no agenda for several elections running. Cameron had the unenviable job of trying to reclaim some sort of Conservative agenda from what Labour had mutated into by then. Cameron will always be remembered as the one who flubbed the referendum. May will be forgotten.
25 Apr 20
@wolfe63 saidWould you count
Nosterhommus predicts:
- An escalation of pretexts.
- A sudden catastrophe.
- Misplaced accountability.
- Justifications for perpetual war.
- Election suspension.
misplaced accountability
as fulfilled by now?
01 May 20
@very-rusty saidOne down
This is a pretty easy prediction to make.
I predict that Very Rusty will not win any of the Forum Thread Killings Months in 2020!
-VR
@ponderable saidI know Pondy, thanks for pointing that out! 🙁
One down
On the good side it lasted one month. I think it was a conspiracy against me, lets let VR be the last one to post, or we will say something we know he will reply to. 😉 😛
-VR
01 May 20
@very-rusty saidWhy would that need a conspiracy? Nobody has learned how to say anything you don't reply to.
I know Pondy, thanks for pointing that out! 🙁
On the good side it lasted one month. I think it was a conspiracy against me, lets let VR be the last one to post, or we will say something we know he will reply to. 😉 😛
-VR