TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

Users who are viewing this thread

Nega-Brutus

Sergeant at Arms
I know. It's just tragically comical to see that kind of optimism and downright arrogance. Women are hiding and being forced to leave their jobs etc. (and that's just the beginning), and the man says "they're quite optimistic ... and worries are understandable". Oh, is it now? **** you.
I'm not sure I understand how your brain works. Do you think that
1) We should never have left Afghanistan or
2) We should take in the Afghans that will inevitably suffer due to the withdrawal or
3) We should try to make the best of the situation or
4) We have no responsibilities here
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
None of that. Just don't say you're "quite optimistic". It's insulting to the people/women there.

(Since you ask, I support the US leaving. They could have stayed there 20 more years and the Taliban would still take over.
The war has been used to give contracts to private companies, accomplishing nothing. Everyone actually involved knew nothing was being achieved, as was revealed in 2019*.
The Afghan army of 300,000 men supplied with state of the art weaponry, planes and helicopters etc. did nothing, and they never would.)

*https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...apers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/
 
He is just being deliberately obtuse and provocative on top of that. Toxic trolling.
None of that. Just don't say you're "quite optimistic". It's insulting to the people/women there.

(Since you ask, I support the US leaving. They could have stayed there 20 more years and the Taliban would still take over.
The war has been used to give contracts to private companies,
Quite.
accomplishing nothing. Everyone actually involved knew nothing was being achieved, as was revealed in 2019*.
Not always true, you are thinking about the security mercs and consultants. I know for a fact that a lot has been done on educating women and peasants to build their businesses and improving local infrastructure. These things are not spectacular as killing, but they happen under the breaking news radar.
 
I know for a fact that a lot has been done on educating women and peasants to build their businesses and improving local infrastructure.


$145 billion. That’s how much money the United States spent on Afghanistan’s reconstruction over 20 years, according to SIGAR, including over $83 billion for the country’s defense and security forces.

60 Billion is the most recent estimate of the disastrous, several times overbudget HS2 project in britain, 530km of modern railway. British development is the least efficient and most corrupt in the developed world. If that amount was pumped into what amounted to some patronising business courses and a few roads, at the cost of some 50,000 civilian lives, I would want to have that swept under the rug as well.
 
That's straight out of your ass. People got help. Deal with it.
"Everything we did - bad" is a narrative, not reality.

Look I don't doubt that some local benefit came out of the billions in aid. That's impossible to deny and I don't know how you can imply that's what I meant. I just think that the majority of it was wasted. NATO is the most stunningly powerful alliance the human race has ever seen. It can conduct decade long wars anywhere on the planet, has enough firepower to kill all life on earth several times over, and control of almost every ocean. But if it can't prop up a state like Afghanistan against the Taliban (which has no foreign support), or provide enough infrastructure to even marginally transform the country, then that is an embarrassment. Afghanistan is still one of the least developed countries on earth.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Not always true, you are thinking about the security mercs and consultants.
Yes. I was only referring to the military and political situation. The goal was to establish conditions preventing the Taliban taking over and that failed. Other 'civilian' achievements have been really good. Like providing education, especially for women. A whole generation have seen a much more free society. That's not a waste.
 
I understand there was only one explosion at Kabul Airport. Not 3 or 4.
Which sources reported on the other explosions?
Multiple explosions were reported, but it turns out the US army was destroying equipment just at the same time, hence the reports of multiple suicide attacks. There was indeed just one targeted explosion.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Look I don't doubt that some local benefit came out of the billions in aid. That's impossible to deny and I don't know how you can imply that's what I meant. I just think that the majority of it was wasted. NATO is the most stunningly powerful alliance the human race has ever seen. It can conduct decade long wars anywhere on the planet, has enough firepower to kill all life on earth several times over, and control of almost every ocean. But if it can't prop up a state like Afghanistan against the Taliban (which has no foreign support), or provide enough infrastructure to even marginally transform the country, then that is an embarrassment. Afghanistan is still one of the least developed countries on earth.
Once powerful Imperial British and Soviet armies also failed respectively. That is basically hell on earth to all occupants. But that is pretty obvious...

I have got an impression that (despite what you said and what btw is true) - NATO (or its particular members) lost interest in a war that no longer served any rational purpose. By rational I mostly mean money... It is very sad that growing a healthy state and/or saving human lives is not a rational purpose in their eyes.

P.S. IMO NATO's biggest problem today is a conflict of interests of the particular member states. I see the cracks on the shield of what once was a unified and strong alliance. I hope I am wrong.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
Erik Prince, the American defense contractor, said he was offering people seats on a chartered plane out of Kabul for $6,500 per person.
(He's the guy behind Blackwater)
 

DanAngleland

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBWF&SNW
I have got an impression that (despite what you said and what btw is true) - NATO (or its particular members) lost interest in a war that no longer served any rational purpose. By rational I mostly mean money... It is very sad that growing a healthy state and/or saving human lives is not a rational purpose in their eyes.
At what point in the last twenty years were Western governments making money from Afghanistan? It has been a huge expense in terms of maintaining a military prescence and the various types of aid sent there.
 
At what point in the last twenty years were Western governments making money from Afghanistan? It has been a huge expense in terms of maintaining a military prescence and the various types of aid sent there.
CIA smuggled heroin, the US created ISIS, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and Bush did 9/11. Wake up sheeple.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
At what point in the last twenty years were Western governments making money from Afghanistan? It has been a huge expense in terms of maintaining a military prescence and the various types of aid sent there.
CIA smuggled heroin, the US created ISIS, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and Bush did 9/11. Wake up sheeple.
To all of the above pointed by Mad "V"... arms dealing is a business on its own, isn't it? This **** goes in billions. The bonus question is: Guess who's economy depends on weapons?

And first and foremost was there ever a better way to show Russians and China the middle finger on 'here we are at your doorstep'. We have been there for 20 years cause this is righteous? Nah... I am not saying this was all smart and done smoothly, West (I am somehow hesitant to write "US" cause the blame goes on all those allied "hyenas") has clearly ****ed this up.

War, border conflicts, state destabilization, stabilization, it is all the basics of the global economy nowadays. More subtle, deadlier, and far more efficient. What did you expect - a financial report?

EDIT: I bet those huge expenses you mention are just a fraction of what they (we, us) earned...
 
Last edited:
That's conspiracy-level thinking and it really doesn't add up. While the mil-ind complex is pro-war, they are but one of the lobbyists in foreign policy, not sinister puppetmasters. The overriding concern from US standpoint is buying supporting US-friendly regimes and regional stability (peace is good for business, which is something that conspiracy theorists fail to understand). They have nothing to gain from instability and arms sales are not enough of a factor.
Only once they decide on a war or nation-building or whatever hawkish move, then come the friends and lobbyists trying to get a piece of that newly-allocated government budget. Iraq was not invaded for Halliburton's sake, but once the decision was made, they were very well-connected to make a lot of money out of public funds.
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
That's conspiracy-level thinking snip
I don't know man. Putting the whole effort to discuss the expenses side of the table doesn't add up either. I am far from saying this was some kind of conspiracy. If the peace was good for business why it is no longer the case? Maybe it has just stopped being profitable to some people.
 

dijiTurk

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&BWF&S
If i dont know wrong Afganistan has rich mining deposit for Electric cars' battery. Plus, again it's very rich at drug pruduction(for legal uses in medicine etc, or illegal types).

But this is only economic side of the land(for both afgans & others).

There is terrorist organizations which must be prevented ( and seems it wont because afgan government had left alone). Plus, there is a concern for west related with some other countries that close to afganistan. (- ie. - from chine's dangerous type spread & its possible risk for values. Which is reasonable concern. )

As main things looks like above..

I think that west should review/replan/react how to help agfanistan much more & much healthier with its' economic advantages for all. But, idk how west can prevent terrorist organizations better without a government. Today, it seems like radical minds with wrong understanding of God's warnings gonna be partner for all on the way of reaching freedom/development/stabilization/values/preventing terrorizm/preventing risks...

Afganistan seems harder than before for all to be a better land.
I'm sad for all loses, including American soldiers. I hope better future & freedom at better understandings for all.
 
I don't know man. Putting the whole effort to discuss the expenses side of the table doesn't add up either. I am far from saying this was some kind of conspiracy. If the peace was good for business why it is no longer the case? Maybe it has just stopped being profitable to some people.
Or you can read the news and the statements and see how they make sense. The US pulled out because of war weariness, especially after Trump promised to pull out and made a (non-enforcable, so poor) exit deal with the Taliban. The Taliban then only had to wait it out and everyone saw the end game, so that's how the ANA crumbled. Soldiers don't want to fight when it's hopeless.

It's easier if you see it in terms of policies (because that's how the decision makers see it), and not a money-making exercise. I know "follow the money" is a good detective principle to uncover the principle actors, but geostrategic decisions are beyond that.

I recommend reading serious books about US foreign policy - there are many well-written ones full of details how things get decided. Pick your favorite US president and read a book about his presidency (that's not centered around his personality and personal life, that's just popular ****).
 
Last edited:

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Or you can read the news and the statements and see how they make sense. The US pulled out because of war weariness, especially after Trump promised to pull out and made a (non-enforcable, so poor) exit deal with the Taliban. The Taliban then only had to wait it out and everyone saw the end game, so that's how the ANA crumbled. Soldiers don't want to fight when it's hopeless.

It's easier if you see it in terms of policies (because that's how the decision makers see it), and not a money-making exercise. I know "follow the money" is a good detective principle to uncover the principle actors, but geostrategic decisions are beyond that.
Sure, you made a ton of arguments it is hard to discuss against. All good, I am not saying it does not count here. Geostrategic decisions bring profits that can be long-term valued. I said "money" - didn't mean it literally / instantly, my bad - words do matter. But their sole presence in Afghanistan was for sure a leverage for many diplomatic, economic and strategic operations, undeniably. Reading the news from time to time - I am sadly still not that much familiar with all the steps, declarations, and legislations of previous presidents of the United States but I simply have a hard time believing they spent 20 (not 5 or 10 - when they killed Osama and somehow met the primary goal but 20!) years in Afghanistan to end up like this without any measurable or even collateral profits. Also, see this:


What really does not surprise me is that the Republican started the war and Democrat is ending it.
 
Top Bottom