Nobody calls it that or thinks of it that way except for the media and the gov't. It will always be "the 401" to non pod-people.

God I can't stand this type of shit. There's no glory in having your dead carcass paraded down a road "named" in anticipation of exploiting your death for political collateral. I'm not saying everything our military does is bad, and our government certainly kicks a lot of ass compared to almost any other country.. But this renaming bullshit comes from the Afghan/Iraq conflicts which I think 99% of sane people agree are not about freedom but the military industrial complex sustaining itself.

And just like in the USA, most of our military is not comprised of "heroes" but the poor, the unintelligent, the naive, the unskilled, basically the dregs of society who have joined up for countless reasons that do not include protecting the country. Usually they're trying to avoid going on welfare or are trying to pay for an education (which is sort of heroic in some senses). In some cases they're just dumb enough to believe what a recruiter tells them.

*promote
http://newsok.com/afghan-policeman-kills-6-u.s.-service-members/article/3519192

I'm not saying that the killer was in this video, but someone needs to start winning this war or get the fuck out.

“Dogs are the best detectors,” Oates said at an Oct. 20 news conference at JIEDDO headquarters in Arlington, Va.When dogs are teamed with small dismounted teams of U.S. and Afghan troops, they are capable of detecting 80 percent of IEDs, he said. “That combo presents the best detection system we currently have.”

Since it was created in 2006, JIEDDO has eagerly sought out every possible technological tool it could find in government, industry and academia to locate and remotely detonate IEDs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far it has spent nearly $17 billion on new technologies and training programs.

...

Training and educating soldiers is critical in the fight against IEDs, Oates said. It is also the “most underappreciated” piece of JIEDDO’s portfolio. U.S. troops from the get-go face a huge disadvantage in this war because they lack knowledge of local language and culture, Oates said. They also “carry enormous ignorance” about what motivates locals to collaborate with the Taliban or al-Qaida and help them build and bury IEDs. “This is a complicated challenge for us,” Oates said.

BAGHDAD — Despite major bombings that have rattled the nation, and fears of rising violence as American troops withdraw, Iraq’s security forces have been relying on a device to detect bombs and weapons that the United States military and technical experts say is useless.

The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

Still, the Iraqi government has purchased more than 1,500 of the devices, known as the ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Nearly every police checkpoint, and many Iraqi military checkpoints, have one of the devices, which are now normally used in place of physical inspections of vehicles.

To be honest, when I read about this poll last week or the week before, I wondered if the polling was done with or without armed guards. I'm not doubting the fact that the very large majority of Afghans have never heard about 9/11 - or anything else that happened outside their area for that matter -, but even if for some reason anyone did know, admitting it in front of armed foreigners would seem like a bad idea.

I know my great-grandfather didn't know shit about concentration camps when the Brits came along. Sudden onset amnesia, he later called it. Horrible example, I know.

Might be of interest: http://videosift.com/video/Will-Canada-Extend-Afghan-Mission

>> ^quantumushroom:

Wishful thinking. The promised "drubbing" of A.C. never arrived.
Is the argument that Bush really attempted "nation-building" in Afghanistan? There were 30K troops in Afghanistan when he left office.
At that time, Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, said: “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan.” So according to Reid, 30K troops wasn't/isn't enough.
Obama's curious decision to keep the Afghan war going just doesn't make sense. I was surprised he betrayed his fanbase's wishes to leave.
It's obvious His Earness has no intention of winning over there, and has either gone along with or even developed all the bull$hit "rules" that make it impossible to win. You don't set timelines when you're fighting a war; you win it.
There's a very good case for getting the hell out of Afghanistan. Probably public opinion will end it along with the removal of His Earness in 2012.


Sooo you think Iraq was the better war to keep going....or are you actually antiwar?

Wishful thinking. The promised "drubbing" of A.C. never arrived.

Is the argument that Bush really attempted "nation-building" in Afghanistan? There were 30K troops in Afghanistan when he left office.

At that time, Harry Reid, Democrat Senate Leader, said: “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan.” So according to Reid, 30K troops wasn't/isn't enough.

Obama's curious decision to keep the Afghan war going just doesn't make sense. I was surprised he betrayed his fanbase's wishes to leave.

It's obvious His Earness has no intention of winning over there, and has either gone along with or even developed all the bull$hit "rules" that make it impossible to win. You don't set timelines when you're fighting a war; you win it.

There's a very good case for getting the hell out of Afghanistan. Probably public opinion will end it along with the removal of His Earness in 2012.

It must be nice living in a world without shades of gray.

You keep wanting to paint me as someone who condones their religious/extremist views. The point I've been trying to make, and that you keep wanting to avoid, is that not all of them are true believers - and that those who join the Taliban for religious reasons are not the same as those who join for nationalist reasons. Observe the same trend in the American army - some do it for personal reasons, some do it for America, and some do it for Christ. Is it so hard to believe the bad guys forces might have the same factions?

Official protocol eh? Rendition, waterboarding etc. etc. is all official protocol. Does this condemn all members of the armed forces? Or just the ranking members who make policy? Hmmm...

Praising God condemns them all? Visit any American base abroad and count how many go to church or pray regularly. Hmmmm....

Definition of the Taliban eh? Thats a good idea. From Wikipedia:

The Taliban, alternative spelling Taleban,[5] (Pashto: طالبان ṭālibān, meaning "students") is a Wahhabi Islamist political movement that governed Afghanistan from 1996 until it was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement governing mainly local Pashtun areas during night and fighting a guerrilla war against the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)

I see the Islamist political movement...and then I see insurgency. I have no doubts the Islamic extremists run the show. I also have no doubts the insurgency (Nationalist) aspect is a big draw in recruiting. Much like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban recruits based on resentment and anger towards imperial powers. You know this, I'm sure.

There's no such thing as a moderate Taliban member? Says who? You'll have to provide more than your word on that one. I'll rely on practicality and realism.

I had no intention of lumping you in with the Fox News assholes. I was meaning to display the various political factions within any given movement - devout doesn't always mean extremist. Not every American pastor or Priest is a Phelps supporter at heart - and not every Afghan insurgent is a wahhabist at heart. You see that, don't you?

I'm guessing many of them signed up to fight the Imperial invaders, not just to woman-beat and Jew-hate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see the informants and intelligence sources from within Taliban-held areas that Americans and other NATO forces rely on for intel, would you?

I despise extremist religious/political philosophy as much as you do. But, I also understand that I would sign up with the nearest big group of assholes in my part of the world if it meant we could better fight off foreign invaders.

>> ^LostTurntable:

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.
Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.
They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.
And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.
I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.

>> ^Throbbin:
Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.

Yes, but the Allied forces who have done horrible things aren't acting on official protocol. Taliban terrorists who attack and murder women are doing so because their ideology dictates that's okay.

I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists.

Go back and count how many times they praise God in that video. Even if not every soldier is a die-hard member of the Taliban (and in that video, they all were) they are part of an extremist Islamic political movement. That is the definition of the Taliban. Look it up.

They are also inhuman savages that beat women for no reason. That's also a fact. It is a strict part of the Taliban idealogy, they go hand-in-hand. Breaking that rule is paramount to breaking any other rule set by the Taliban. There's no such thing as a "moderate" Taliban member.

And for fuck's sake don't lump me in with the Faux News idiots and the anti-"Mosque" assholes. You want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Go nuts. Build 80. Because the people in NYC who want to build a mosque AREN'T THE FUCKING TALIBAN.

I am sure that many people in Afghanistan do not want the US forces there. But there are just as many who don't want the Taliban there. Saying "not all Taliban soldiers are bad" is like saying "not all Nazi soldiers are bad" that may be true, but they are supporting a cause that is without a doubt entirely evil. So fuck them. They made their choice to sign up with woman-beating, Jew-hating, freedom-denying (and yes, these guys actually do hate freedom, as sad as it is. Under Taliban rule you aren't allowed to speak your mind, do what you want or even listen to music.) assholes who deserve to die.


>> ^Throbbin:

Don't be simple.
I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.
I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.
"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?
They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?
I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:
Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

Don't be simple.

I am well aware of the acid attacks. I am also well aware that some American/Canadian/British/Australian soldiers are assholes who have killed innocent women and children. Does that make all of the soldiers in those armed forces assholes? Nope.

I highly doubt that all Taliban fighters are crazed religious or social extremists. I'd bet a good amount of money that many of them joined up because they don't want Team America there. I probably would have if I were in their shoes, and I'm not religious in any way.

"He's a warlord" - yeah, and how much do you want to bet General Petraeus has a summer home and a regular home?

They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out - sounds like the ultra conservatives in America and Canada. Have you seen any of the anti-immigration or anti-NY-mosque rallies lately?

I'm not pro-Taliban, but I am pro-truth. And the truth is that not all Talibanis are crazed religious extremists, and that once in awhile it's a good idea to remember that the people we are fighting (in their country) are people too, not just maniacs like the MSM would have you believe.
>> ^LostTurntable:

Surprise surprise - the "bad guys" aren't all evil monstrous brutal animals. Some of them are just normal folks who resent Team America invading their country and telling them what to do.
I guess he wasn't invited on the mission where Taliban forces attacked schoolgirls with acid.
I understand the war is a complicated issue, but these are holy warrior assholes who enslave women for their own perverted satisfaction. Notice how the commander used to have several houses? You think he got them via good stark market deals/ No, he's a warlord.
These are also religious zealots. They don't just want "Team America" out. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them out. Or dead. Preferably dead.
You can be against the war, that's great. But don't be pro-Taliban.

I hadn't appreciated until recently just how near a thing this all was.

Osama kills Northern Afghanistan's strongest leader, the one man that a US invasion could unite the country behind against the Taliban, and then 2 days later the WTC attacks come to force the Afghan war against the Taliban. At that time, both Musharraf, the Pakistani military and intelligence services where all closely working with the Taliban and had generally good relations. They were strategic allies against Pakistan's nemesis, India.

Osama was banking on Pakistan siding with the Taliban in the conflict, luckily for the world that bet fell short. If it had come out I guarantee the next step was provocations against India from within Pakistan to try and bring about WW3.

>> ^Drax:

Doin' flips 'nd shit.

in your flippy floppies and nautical themed pashmina afghan?

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
If you show me a Democrat who voted for Obama in '08 that won't vote for him again this next election because of his continued support of the Bush doctrine, then I'll take my words back.
First you would need to find a Democrat who believed your false premise about Obama following the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine would have demanded that Obama make a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran as soon as we became concerned that they may pose a threat to US interests in the foreseeable future.
Instead, Obama is engaging in multilateral diplomatic sanctions, which you are falsely equating with war.
All that said, I'm sure you could find such uninformed liberals who're vowing to oppose Obama in 2012 all over the place, I bet you could even find a few here. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Bush doctrine... wait, did not Bush, and McCain, and republicans raise the war horn for a "threatening" Iran? So, did I miss something, or did Bush not make a preemptive strike when he was President?

Sure, the Bush Doctrine says to attack, but not that we must attack--as he proved.

Second, I am sure most Afghans do not really care what you call it Net, however, when the day is finished and the sand and rock blasted, and the drones done with their assualts and what-not, and the dead American soliders, well, it boils down to a war. Maybe not Obama's war, maybe not his choice of escaltion for whatever purpose (Multilateral or not,) maybe not his harem in the basement of the White House (I would have one!,) but in the hot sun, philosophy blows-cock.

So whatever reason, however handled, what not, does not change death to life, poverty to both nations to richness, or ideals in both parties. You make excuses, and like I said, maybe Obama cannot stop the chain of events, only help, but it still happens.

*Edit ^Gwiz said it much better than me... But I will keep my post up anyway... muahahaha...

* Disclaimer: This became a wall of text as I explained my reasoning. Also it is really really late so spelling might be off.
I hate to do this but winstonfield actually has one valid point even though his way of saying it was clumsy/not PC.
Reader's Digest: Wars are not winnable in modern times.

Full text:
Wars are not winnable in modern times as the populations are too big and know too much to simply accept a new ruler, even in backwater places like Afghanistan. Back in the day before proper nation states and democracy and all that a farmer could probably not care less who he paid his taxes to as long as he was left alone and had enough to feed himself and his family, and if he wasn't what could he do? The king was a king because God wanted it to be that way and he had knights and armies and the farmer did not. Today a 10 year old can mass produce home-made bombs that cost under 100 dollars a pop whilst a Military drops bombs that costs over 100 000 dollars a pop from 20 000 000 dollar aircrafts that land on 200 000 000 dollar Carriers. Today we know that wars cost money. We know that if you drag out a war long enough the populace of the invading force will most likely falter in their support, war weariness and all that (Vietnam anyone?). When the 100 000 US soldier dies by IED after 50 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq somehow I doubt that the support for the war will be there any more.

IMO if you want to win a war militarily you have to commit to total war and genocide and simply kill of all of the natives and move your own people in to settle the area. As long as one person remembers what it was like to be free from invaders they will fight. It is human nature. Just imagine if the USSR had invaded the US during the Cold War and conquered it militarily. Would the US citizens who survived the initial bombings just say, after a year or two or 8: "Oh, well. Guess I will stop fighting now and join the invading side. Seems like they have some things going for them..."? I doubt it.

Clarification:
Is this (Genocide and total war) something I advocate? No, but as Aldous Huxley said: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." IMO War serves no other purpose than to cull some of the human population. Nothing more and nothing less. It has served its purpose in the past, when countries could be conquered, but it has become obsolete in the modern world where populations are too large to control properly.

A couple of random thoughts:
To win a war today you have to break every single convention on warfare there is and use NBC weapons, or massive bombardments and just carpet bomb every inch of the country you are at war with, to annihilate the populace. If you are not prepared to do that you should not go to war as you cannot win, ever! (If you are prepared to do that I hope you never get into a position of power!)

Militaries are not for winning wars, they are for fighting them. When the politicians are bored of the fighting or it starts to affect their ratings negatively they sue for a peace treaty...

What is the definition of winning a war? Aren't wars supposed to be about conquest and getting new land and natural resources or perhaps vindication for a perceived insult to the crown or something? What would constitute a win in the Afghan and Iraqi wars? And is that a military goal or a political one?

Well, in a straight up war I would tend to agree with you, but this is not a war. We are not at war with afghanistan or iraq or iran or basically anywhere in the middle east. It's a "war" against terrorists. There are terrorists inside the United States too, and you wouldn't destroy infrastructure there to get to them, would you?

Attacking the infrastructure in afghanistan is hardly putting a dent in the terrorists own infrastructure since they are no more than 10.000 people anyway, we're just fucking with a whole bunch of afghanis instead.

Afghanistan was the right place to hunt for Bin Laden.. in 2001. By now the wars are obsolete. If we started to catch the flies with honey instead of bombs, we would stop the supply of new terrorists or at least stem the tide. Which arguments do you think the terrorist leaders have for the newcomers? "We're getting back at the infidels who murdered your family" etc. Taking that away by not killing civilians and destroying their homes, would help security far more than powering through, unless, obviously, we really, really power through and nuke the shit out of it, and I don't think anyone wants that. To win this war, as you say, it will have to become bloody, very much more bloody than it already is; but we don't have to win it. It's a contrived war, like the war on drugs. There's no "losing face" when people's lives are at stake - I'd rather lose face than lose a limb. Pride has no place in a politician. The people who have already died or been injured have not died for nothing, even if we stop now, they died for whatever cause drove them to fight.

We shouldn't continue a bad thing, just because we've done it so far. "I've believed in this for years, I can't change my mind now!" Yes, you can.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

It isn't complicated...
1. The anti-war left is never happy when America engages in military action.
2. Obama and the Democrats heavily courted the extreme anti-war left to get elected on the premise that they were going to shut down Iraq, close Gitmo, and bring the troops home.
3. Obama and the Democrats heavily courted the pro-war right to get elected on the primise that Afghanistan was "the right war" and they would get it done properly.
4. As the actual CiC of the armed forces, Obama now realizes Bush wasn't just some neo-con crackpot and there were actually darn good reasons for following "The Bush Doctrine".
5. The pro-war right is dissappointed over Obama's failure to support the Afghan troops.
6. The anti-war left is dissappointed over Obama's failure to close Gitmo and escalating the Afghan fight.
I'm going to come right out and say it. The only way you win wars is to attack POPULATIONS and INFRASTRUCTURE. You don't win wars by killing soldiers, or taking out individual military commanders. You can certainly demoralize the enemy by killing soldiers & commanders, but if you never touch the population that produces the soliders or the infrastructure that supports them then you'll never win. It is impossible.
Yes, it is entirely possible to win in Afghanistan. But the way to do it would be so horrifying and bloody that the United States has no stomach for the process. If we aren't going to go in there to WIN this thing, then what's the point? McCrystal & the others sounded to me like soldiers who were frustrated at not being able to run a military action in a way that would be effective. That policy is being dictated to them by politicians who don't mind the bleeding of money and soldiers because that doesn't impact their approval ratings as much as would happen with a full-scale offensive or a whole-scale pullout.