Welcome to Gaia! ::

God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

That is .. completely incorrect. Alexander the Great conquered it. Gengis Khan conquered it. Chandragupta Maury, as well as the various times Afghanistan has been part of local empires. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that "they" have never lost a war. For that matter, who is "they"? The Pashtuns? Let's ignore the treaty of Gandamak where the Afghans ceded territory to the British so they wouldn't invade the rest of the country (sounds a lot like giving up); the Taliban is willing to enter into talks with America. Seems pretty odd for people who never give up.

Both the Macedonians and the Mongolians were fought off inevitably by the indigenous people of Afghanistan. Nobody has ever conquered that land and neither will the US.

By the logic that they were eventually fought off, no land has ever been conquered. What political entity has existed throughout the entirety of history? Protip: none. Nope, Afghanistan has been conquered many a times, and Afghans have surrendered plenty of times. Learn some history on the area.

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

Europe is different from Afghanistan, North Africa is different from Afghanistan, The Nazi's are different from Afghanistan. Do you not get it? Afghanistan has faced foes more powerful than the US and they have always won. They NEVER lost a war and they NEVER give up. Staying there is only going to amount to more deaths.

That is .. completely incorrect. Alexander the Great conquered it. Gengis Khan conquered it. Chandragupta Maury, as well as the various times Afghanistan has been part of local empires. So I'm not sure where you get the idea that "they" have never lost a war. For that matter, who is "they"? The Pashtuns? Let's ignore the treaty of Gandamak where the Afghans ceded territory to the British so they wouldn't invade the rest of the country (sounds a lot like giving up); the Taliban is willing to enter into talks with America. Seems pretty odd for people who never give up.

Both the Macedonians and the Mongolians were fought off inevitably by the indigenous people of Afghanistan. Nobody has ever conquered that land and neither will the US.

By the logic that they were eventually fought off, no land has ever been conquered. What political entity has existed throughout the entirety of history? Protip: none. Nope, Afghanistan has been conquered many a times, and Afghans have surrendered plenty of times. Learn some history on the area.

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

Both the Macedonians and the Mongolians were fought off inevitably by the indigenous people of Afghanistan. Nobody has ever conquered that land and neither will the US.

By the logic that they were eventually fought off, no land has ever been conquered. What political entity has existed throughout the entirety of history? Protip: none. Nope, Afghanistan has been conquered many a times, and Afghans have surrendered plenty of times. Learn some history on the area.

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.

No they were not. Alexander the Great AND Gengis Khan both died while the areas were under the expanse or territories. It was only following their deaths that civil war broke out amongst their own people.

Which Royal family? There have been multiple lines of England monarchies. The current one is of German ancestry. England has not existed for long, historically speaking. Again, there is no such thing as a government or political entity that has existed throughout all of history. So, your idea that Afghanistan was never conquered means no place has ever been conquered.
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

Both the Macedonians and the Mongolians were fought off inevitably by the indigenous people of Afghanistan. Nobody has ever conquered that land and neither will the US.

By the logic that they were eventually fought off, no land has ever been conquered. What political entity has existed throughout the entirety of history? Protip: none. Nope, Afghanistan has been conquered many a times, and Afghans have surrendered plenty of times. Learn some history on the area.

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.

No they were not. Alexander the Great AND Gengis Khan both died while the areas were under the expanse or territories. It was only following their deaths that civil war broke out amongst their own people.

Which Royal family? There have been multiple lines of England monarchies. The current one is of German ancestry. England has not existed for long, historically speaking. Again, there is no such thing as a government or political entity that has existed throughout all of history. So, your idea that Afghanistan was never conquered means no place has ever been conquered.

Again. Fought off, violently until both nations lost interest. I learned their history. They NEVER lose.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.

No they were not. Alexander the Great AND Gengis Khan both died while the areas were under the expanse or territories. It was only following their deaths that civil war broke out amongst their own people.

Which Royal family? There have been multiple lines of England monarchies. The current one is of German ancestry. England has not existed for long, historically speaking. Again, there is no such thing as a government or political entity that has existed throughout all of history. So, your idea that Afghanistan was never conquered means no place has ever been conquered.

Again. Fought off, violently until both nations lost interest. I learned their history. They NEVER lose.

No they were not. Alexander's empire was split, and what became of his territories in modern Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid empire, who then later gave said territories to India as part of a treaty. The Mongols were usurped by the Mughal empire. Neither were fought off by the Afghans themselves.

Evidently you didn't, because you'd know how incorrect that statement is if you had. Saying they never lose is blatantly flying in the face of historical fact. You were wrong. Accept it.
I think you guys should stay in Afghanistan. More people die, the better off this planet is.
The rose in spring
I think you guys should stay in Afghanistan. More people die, the better off this planet is.


Yeah I mean shoot, who cares if more dark skinned villagers die at the hands of the hegemonic Western corporate globalist agenda eh?
pockybot
The rose in spring
I think you guys should stay in Afghanistan. More people die, the better off this planet is.


Yeah I mean shoot, who cares if more dark skinned villagers die at the hands of the hegemonic Western corporate globalist agenda eh?

I certainly don't and I don't care if American soldiers die either.
The rose in spring
pockybot
The rose in spring
I think you guys should stay in Afghanistan. More people die, the better off this planet is.


Yeah I mean shoot, who cares if more dark skinned villagers die at the hands of the hegemonic Western corporate globalist agenda eh?

I certainly don't and I don't care if American soldiers die either.


You don't care if innocent villagers are bombed by America? Geez, and to think you were an anti war liberal. Guess I was wrong
pockybot
The rose in spring
pockybot
The rose in spring
I think you guys should stay in Afghanistan. More people die, the better off this planet is.


Yeah I mean shoot, who cares if more dark skinned villagers die at the hands of the hegemonic Western corporate globalist agenda eh?

I certainly don't and I don't care if American soldiers die either.


You don't care if innocent villagers are bombed by America? Geez, and to think you were an anti war liberal. Guess I was wrong

Nobody is ******** innocent. You constantly give people love and respect and all they do is hurt you. ******** humans, I hope they die.
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

There have been so many cases where land has been conquered indefinitely that your argument is incredibly moot. The UK for example is a nation where Vikings conquered the Saxons and that government is still in place. The people never fought off those invaders. even places like India and PNG gained their independence peacefully. Afghanistan, not so much. Macedonia and Mongolia couldn't win.

Ah, so England is still part of tribal confederacies of Celtic Britons? Or no, wait .. it's still Roman territory? Or no wait, it's still Norman territory? It's interesting because it only became a unified "England" of sorts in the 10th century, so how it's always existed is very strange to me. Oh right, Alexander couldn't win, which is why he founded Kandahar, and Genghis Khan couldn't win, which is why after utterly decimating Khwarezmia, he would later move on to invading the Islamic world and Eastern Europe. Yep, couldn't win. The Muslims couldn't win either, which is why the major religion of Afghanistan totally isn't Islam.

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.

No they were not. Alexander the Great AND Gengis Khan both died while the areas were under the expanse or territories. It was only following their deaths that civil war broke out amongst their own people.

Which Royal family? There have been multiple lines of England monarchies. The current one is of German ancestry. England has not existed for long, historically speaking. Again, there is no such thing as a government or political entity that has existed throughout all of history. So, your idea that Afghanistan was never conquered means no place has ever been conquered.

Again. Fought off, violently until both nations lost interest. I learned their history. They NEVER lose.

No they were not. Alexander's empire was split, and what became of his territories in modern Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid empire, who then later gave said territories to India as part of a treaty. The Mongols were usurped by the Mughal empire. Neither were fought off by the Afghans themselves.

Evidently you didn't, because you'd know how incorrect that statement is if you had. Saying they never lose is blatantly flying in the face of historical fact. You were wrong. Accept it.

The Mughal Empire had their territory end in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Infact, the Mughals attempted an expansion into Afghanistan in the the early 17th Century. That didn't go over very well just like everyone else who attempted to take that land..
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton
Tactical Leg Sweep
God Emperor Akhenaton

Except both were fought off violently. England started however by the Normans which the Royal Family came from.

No they were not. Alexander the Great AND Gengis Khan both died while the areas were under the expanse or territories. It was only following their deaths that civil war broke out amongst their own people.

Which Royal family? There have been multiple lines of England monarchies. The current one is of German ancestry. England has not existed for long, historically speaking. Again, there is no such thing as a government or political entity that has existed throughout all of history. So, your idea that Afghanistan was never conquered means no place has ever been conquered.

Again. Fought off, violently until both nations lost interest. I learned their history. They NEVER lose.

No they were not. Alexander's empire was split, and what became of his territories in modern Afghanistan became part of the Seleucid empire, who then later gave said territories to India as part of a treaty. The Mongols were usurped by the Mughal empire. Neither were fought off by the Afghans themselves.

Evidently you didn't, because you'd know how incorrect that statement is if you had. Saying they never lose is blatantly flying in the face of historical fact. You were wrong. Accept it.

The Mughal Empire had their territory end in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Infact, the Mughals attempted an expansion into Afghanistan in the the early 17th Century. That didn't go over very well just like everyone else who attempted to take that land..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Mughal_Ages.jpeg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baluchistan

"Balochistan (Balochi بلوچستان) or Baluchistan[1] is an arid, mountainous region in the Iranian plateau in Southwest Asia; it includes part of southeastern Iran, western Pakistan, and southwestern Afghanistan."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_dynasty

"The Timurids (Persian: تیموریان‎), self-designated Gurkānī [2][3][4] (Persian: گوركانى‎), were a Persianate,[5][6] Central Asian Sunni Muslim dynasty of Turco-Mongolian lineage [6][7][8][9] descent whose Timurid Empire included the whole of Iran, modern Afghanistan, and modern Uzbekistan, as well as large parts of contemporary Pakistan, North India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Caucasus. It was founded by the militant conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) in the 14th century."

neutral Again, please learn history before you start making claims like that a group of people have never been conquered or lost a war, and especially when you turn around and insist you HAVE learned said history when you clearly have not.

You were wrong. Be an adult and accept it.
Evil Spagetti's avatar

Wheezing Bloodsucker

7,350 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Noob wrangler 100
  • Gaian 50
american imperialists needs to GTFO
washu_2004's avatar

Shameless Heckler

10,100 Points
  • Brandisher 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
What would the ideal situation be for the jihadi terrorists?

Driving a wedge between the US and Pakistan, its closest regional ally by use of a 5th column smear campaign spread by western sympathizers and useful idiots would be perfect for them.
Disa Uniflora's avatar

Perfect Hunter

9,450 Points
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
  • Jolly Roger 50
  • Brandisher 100
washu_2004
What would the ideal situation be for the jihadi terrorists?

Driving a wedge between the US and Pakistan, its closest regional ally by use of a 5th column smear campaign spread by western sympathizers and useful idiots would be perfect for them.

Are you seriously attributing responsibility for the damage to US-Pakistan relations to the insurgents alone? That's preposterous, bordering on hilarious.

1. Many Pakistanis have been angry with their government's cooperative policy towards the US-led coalition's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan since it began, rather like many Egyptians were upset with Mubarak over his perceived refusal to put the needs of the country and their Islamic duties before political machinations with the west. We were always going to see this significant political bloc make eventual headway. It was obvious to any intelligent observer.

2. Early in the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan was given a lot in the way of political platitudes and an increased amount of aid assistance from the United States, as well as debt forgiveness. Furthermore, the United States offered impressive rewards to Pakistanis in the early days of the war in exchange for Taliban fighters captured in their country. While this program probably led to the capture and detainment of a great deal of knowingly false positives, it did serve to dull some of the antagonistic fervour, especially along the border regions where most captures took place. With the end of the actual Taliban of years gone by and the switch to an insurgency situation, the financial incentives have slowly diminished, and their veneer has been dulled.

3. In the late 2000s it came to light that the vast majority of the aid that the United was using to purchase the continued support and assistance of the Pakistani military was being misspent. You see, the United States has been footing the bill for the Pakistani military's various assistance efforts in the War on Terror, but Pakistan has rarely, if ever, displayed any particular enthusiasm towards this. Upon taking a closer look it was found that they were inflating their costs by exorbitant amounts and putting the money they had defrauded from the United States over the years towards other expenditures of no use to the coalition forces. As a result of this, effective aid to Pakistan has actually been reduced, in spite of an overt continuation of aid roughly equivalent to previous totals. Much of the money, assigned through United States contractors, is now siphoned back to the United States. Due to this and the increased scrutiny of Pakistan's expenditures, the transactional side of US-Pakistan relations had already begun cooling about four years ago.

4. In recent years we have also seen increased suspicion on the part of the United States government and coalition forces towards the ISI's activities. Years before the raid that would eventually end in Osama bin Laden's death, the circumstances surrounding which first brought concerns over Pakistan's loyalties to light in the eyes of much of the public, there was already suspicion that the ISI was tipping off radical Islamists operating within their country to coalition activities. Suspicions like these are what motivated your government to draw down on Osama bin Laden's compound without alerting the Pakistani government to its intent, after all.

5. Years of drone attacks in Pakistan have done incredible damage to whatever goodwill there may have been in the relationship. In part because they they have been done in coordination with the Pakistani government, this has proven to be a fundamental issue. It ties back into my first point in a rather direct way. Indeed, this issue more than any other is of great concern because Pakistan's government has maintained a public stance of moral outrage throughout the drone campaign, deflecting all of the public's blame and anger onto the United States. However, with the eventual release of information proving the Pakistani government an accessory in the drone campaign, their own public approval has been greatly diminished. To address the campaign itself, there have been over 300 drone strikes killing anywhere between 2400 and 3050 people. Actual civilian death tolls have been highly contested, but near as I can tell the best estimate is roughly between 450 and 810. There's also little verification of the militants killed, so the whole data set is quite fuzzy. What's most interesting about this is that, while there are widespread protests against the campaign throughout Pakistan, the people polled as being most publicly supportive have been residents of the Waziristan region where many of the strikes have taken place, but I think I'm beginning to run into a tangent.

6. Lastly, the knockout blow was landed in November of last year when 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by a NATO air strike. This was the straw that broke the camel's proverbial back, and since then the Pakistani government has been reeling under sustained calls for a renewed chilling of US-Pakistan relations both from within its military forces and from its people. This has led to the closure of the NATO supply line through Pakistan and the evacuation of the Shamsi air base, which has led us into the present day diplomatic situation.

None of this addresses what many Americans have simply never seemed to understand: the United States and Pakistan had terrible relations all the way up to 9/11 and the War on Terror. You were enemies, not friends, and you were never going to become friends simply on account of your two governments seeing short term gain in a closer relationship. You falling out now doesn't indicate a sad parting of forlorn lovers so much as a return to normalcy in your relations. Once you've accounted for all of these, then you can begin to blame radical Islamists for the role they've played in 'driving a wedge' between your country and Pakistan. I think you'll find that they were plenty far enough apart already.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games