International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Split Thread: War in Afghanistan (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298730)

The Atheist 28th September 2015 02:24 PM

War in Afghanistan
 
Mod InfoThe first 16 posts were split from another thread.
Posted By:Agatha


Meanwhile, things in Afghanistan are going so well since our brave American brothers invaded them:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-...ease-prisoners

DGM 28th September 2015 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900086)
Meanwhile, things in Afghanistan are going so well since our brave American brothers invaded them:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-...ease-prisoners

It's a shame. It was all so good before we wrecked it................:rolleyes:

Joey McGee 28th September 2015 02:44 PM

So should Afghanistan give into the Taliban like you think Britain should have given in to the Nazis?

The Atheist 28th September 2015 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900108)
It's a shame. It was all so good before we wrecked it................:rolleyes:

No, it was about the same.

The difference is the civilians and "coalition" soldiers killed since the invasion.

My point is entirely that Afghanistan was a balls-up before the invasion and a balls-up now.

What purpose did the invasion serve?

A list of a few things will do. I sure can't see any - unless you want to count the profits made by arms manufacturers?

DGM 28th September 2015 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900363)

What purpose did the invasion serve?

As far as I can see, none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900363)
A list of a few things will do. I sure can't see any - unless you want to count the profits made by arms manufacturers?

That's interesting. How exactly do you define "profit"? Would they have profited less without this action?

Numbers please............

Joey McGee 28th September 2015 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900363)
No, it was about the same.

So the health services access and the quality of life index and the infant mortality rates and the education rates and the thousands of miles of roads and internet cables mean nothing to you huh... *********** disgraceful....

The Atheist 28th September 2015 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900371)
That's interesting. How exactly do you define "profit"? Would they have profited less without this action?

Numbers please............

Profit is very simple: income less costs = profit.

As to finding the exact numbers, I imagine that is impossible, however it's fairly safe to say that their income and profits both increased due to increased sales, which clearly happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10900406)
So the health services access and the quality of life index and the infant mortality rates and the education rates and the thousands of miles of roads and internet cables mean nothing to you huh... *********** disgraceful....

And exactly how long do you think those improvements will last with Taliban back in the driver's seat?

Give it ten years and A'stan will be right back where they were.

All those lives expended for nothing, but you'll still be there defending the invasion.

Crazy Chainsaw 28th September 2015 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900515)
Profit is very simple: income less costs = profit.

As to finding the exact numbers, I imagine that is impossible, however it's fairly safe to say that their income and profits both increased due to increased sales, which clearly happened.



And exactly how long do you think those improvements will last with Taliban back in the driver's seat?

Give it ten years and A'stan will be right back where they were.

All those lives expended for nothing, but you'll still be there defending the invasion.

Nuking Afganistan was not an option, the People of Afganistan are now responsible for their own countries success or failure.

DGM 28th September 2015 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900515)
Profit is very simple: income less costs = profit.

As to finding the exact numbers, I imagine that is impossible, however it's fairly safe to say that their income and profits both increased due to increased sales, which clearly happened.



So you assume it must be so.

Producing more does not mean more profit. Increasing production increases cost and unless the demand is maintained equals a net loss. I asked about numbers and you gave me ....................?

Joey McGee 28th September 2015 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900515)
And exactly how long do you think those improvements will last with Taliban back in the driver's seat?

So you admit you're talking out of your ass again for politically motivated purposes? You just said it was no different! Evidence? The Taliban isn't back in the driver's seat, that's laughable nonsense!
Quote:

All those lives expended for nothing, but you'll still be there defending the invasion.
For someone who accuses people of using crystal balls... just profoundly stupid...

Axxman300 28th September 2015 08:08 PM

Afghanistan was where Al Qaeda was in 2001-2002.

Our mistake was being stupid about what happened next, that and trusting Pakistan.

We went in small and should have kept the force small and help the Afghans learn to work together, and form their own system of government. Instead we back Karzai, who on a good day was a crook, and likely bi-polar. We threw money around without accounting for 90% of it, and we ignored the Soviet experience in parts of the country leading to similar outcomes.

The Atheist 28th September 2015 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900576)
So you assume it must be so.

Nope.

I made a presumption based on enormous evidence of corporate activity over many years.

That's how business works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900576)
Producing more does not mean more profit.

Correct.

However, when you have a captive US Government as a client, I would be astonished if any company managed to lose money on increased orders. Company management would need to be certifiably insane to lose money and I don't believe they are in that industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900576)
Increasing production increases cost and unless the demand is maintained equals a net loss.

You have no clue how production works, do you?

Companies deal with peaks and troughs all the time, and any manufacturer that does not have excellent plans in place is not going to last long. It would be again appallingly inept management.

Also, the orders would be well signalled, because the US armed forces already have stores and supplies. Lead times would be very generous and easy to organise to maximise profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 10900576)
I asked about numbers and you gave me ....................?

All that shows is that as well having no idea about manufacturing, you know even less about business.

I am happy to educate, however:

Companies produce financial information.

In private companies that information is not available to the public, however I think all of the major manufacturers would be public companies, so the information is available.

That information contains the accounts for the company operating as a whole and are very rarely issued to the public in detail that includes a breakdown of divisions within the main group.

Even if that information is issued, you can cast-iron guarantee that no company will break down its public accounts to reflect individual product lines, which is what would be needed to show that the US gov't orders increased profit.

Your clever argument asking me to provide evidence is absurd. The evidence does not exist in the public realm.

In that case, it it is perfectly rational to use known facts and business history to presume those profits exist.

Crazy Chainsaw 28th September 2015 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900745)
Nope.

I made a presumption based on enormous evidence of corporate activity over many years.

That's how business works.



Correct.

However, when you have a captive US Government as a client, I would be astonished if any company managed to lose money on increased orders. Company management would need to be certifiably insane to lose money and I don't believe they are in that industry.



You have no clue how production works, do you?

Companies deal with peaks and troughs all the time, and any manufacturer that does not have excellent plans in place is not going to last long. It would be again appallingly inept management.

Also, the orders would be well signalled, because the US armed forces already have stores and supplies. Lead times would be very generous and easy to organise to maximise profit.



All that shows is that as well having no idea about manufacturing, you know even less about business.

I am happy to educate, however:

Companies produce financial information.

In private companies that information is not available to the public, however I think all of the major manufacturers would be public companies, so the information is available.

That information contains the accounts for the company operating as a whole and are very rarely issued to the public in detail that includes a breakdown of divisions within the main group.

Even if that information is issued, you can cast-iron guarantee that no company will break down its public accounts to reflect individual product lines, which is what would be needed to show that the US gov't orders increased profit.

Your clever argument asking me to provide evidence is absurd. The evidence does not exist in the public realm.

In that case, it it is perfectly rational to use known facts and business history to presume those profits exist.

The information is available to anyone who knows where to look, it's in the stock price.

The Atheist 29th September 2015 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 10900755)
The information is available to anyone who knows where to look, it's in the stock price.

No, and not even close.

1 Profits will only affect share price if the increase is large and unexpected.

2 Many arms manufacturers have only a small part of their business supplying weapons to US military, so it wouldn't affect share prices at all.

3 Shares are subject to considerable movement outside profit & loss.

4 Unless you know which company received orders for which weapon at what time, you have nothing to start with, and I can't see that being publicly available information. If it is, show me where it is and I'll gladly do a little research on the companies that supplied the materiel.

Next brilliant idea?

Crazy Chainsaw 29th September 2015 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900851)
No, and not even close.

1 Profits will only affect share price if the increase is large and unexpected.

2 Many arms manufacturers have only a small part of their business supplying weapons to US military, so it wouldn't affect share prices at all.

3 Shares are subject to considerable movement outside profit & loss.

4 Unless you know which company received orders for which weapon at what time, you have nothing to start with, and I can't see that being publicly available information. If it is, show me where it is and I'll gladly do a little research on the companies that supplied the materiel.

Next brilliant idea?

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/1547...itary-contract

Joey McGee 29th September 2015 02:59 AM

Quote:

Afghan forces ready to take Kunduz back from Taliban, official says

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/asia/a...aliban-attack/
A lot of people are going to die today in this battle. AA commanders says they are ready to fight to the last drop of blood. Taliban says they are going to set up Sharia law. I wonder how many days it will take them to retake the city? I wish them the best of luck.

Back in the driver's seat because they took over part of a city... they should just let the Taliban take over... right? Just like Britain should have let the Nazis take over... smh

jaydeehess 29th September 2015 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10900965)
A lot of people are going to die today in this battle. AA commanders says they are ready to fight to the last drop of blood. Taliban says they are going to set up Sharia law. I wonder how many days it will take them to retake the city? I wish them the best of luck.

Back in the driver's seat because they took over part of a city... they should just let the Taliban take over... right? Just like Britain should have let the Nazis take over... smh

Then they can go back to using soccer pitches for the true and right purpose as a forum for putting a bullet into the back of the head of women who dared to be educated.

Jrrarglblarg 29th September 2015 06:33 AM

300 walmarts in Afghanistan would bring them up to the store per capita density of Idaho.

300 walmarts is my peace plan. Jobs, consumer goods availability and motivation to keep the roads free of bombs.

sackett 29th September 2015 06:49 AM

"Your clever argument asking me to provide evidence is absurd."


A stundie like mother used to make!

Ziggurat 29th September 2015 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10900745)
However, when you have a captive US Government as a client, I would be astonished if any company managed to lose money on increased orders. Company management would need to be certifiably insane to lose money and I don't believe they are in that industry.

You're clueless.

I'm sure that all the arms manufacturers made a profit on their sales. I'm sure that the Afghan war increased the demand for certain arms.

But what you don't seem to even consider is the possibility that this increased demand for some arms might lead to a decrease in demand for other arms. And this was in fact the case. The Bush administration cancelled two major arms projects, the Crusader mobile artillery and the Comanche helicopter. These would have been extremely profitable for their manufacturers, had they gone into production.

So it's not enough for you to claim that every arms sale is profitable, and therefore arms manufacturers made a profit off of war. The latter does not follow from the former, because arms manufacturers make a profit during peace time too, and they may be making far better margins during peace time than during war time. So you need to be able to demonstrate that what you claim happened was what actually happened. And you have failed to do so.

KenRam 29th September 2015 09:10 AM

What did they give the soldiers in the UK that refused to fight in the two world wars? Was it not a white feather? I have two nephews and a niece in service possibly in action, and we get a coward and a proven liar posting on this site. By allowing this person to say what he likes with no censure, we should ALL be ashamed of ourselves.

Captain_Swoop 29th September 2015 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenRam (Post 10901553)
What did they give the soldiers in the UK that refused to fight in the two world wars? Was it not a white feather? I have two nephews and a niece in service possibly in action, and we get a coward and a proven liar posting on this site. By allowing this person to say what he likes with no censure, we should ALL be ashamed of ourselves.

Well, you haven't been reading the threads I have been reading I see censure. Plus, why shouldn't he post on the site? he has been here a long time and has a good post count, he can say what he wants. You wouldn't want to censor him would you?

Darth Rotor 29th September 2015 06:37 PM

TA, I notice that the amusement that you accrue from the occasional grenade tossed into the room has not abated.

I'll give the fight in Kunduz another 48 hours before I comment.

The Atheist 29th September 2015 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (Post 10902456)
TA, I notice that the amusement that you accrue from the occasional grenade tossed into the room has not abated.

It's either that or sit in the corner and weep for mankind.

You know which one I'm gonna take!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor (Post 10902456)
I'll give the fight in Kunduz another 48 hours before I comment.

Last I saw, both sides are claiming victory.

One of them may be right.

Quite interesting the Taliban have allegedly undergone some public relations training.

Darth Rotor 29th September 2015 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10902560)
One of them may be right.

I'll suggest that neither has a victory, at this point.

Also, yeah, their PR work seems to be adapting.

The Atheist 30th September 2015 01:28 AM

Looks like a definite round to the Taliban.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-retake-kunduz

Quote:

About 5,000 Afghan troops have congregated around the airport, according to a security official speaking to Reuters. But they barely make up for the large number of troops who fled the city when the Taliban invaded. According to local officials, morale remained low.

The Atheist 30th September 2015 01:43 PM

The Beeb is now saying they've taken a couple of nearby strategic points, so moving them along just got more difficult.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34398371

Joey McGee 30th September 2015 01:57 PM

So you're rooting for the Taliban so your narrative can be more true?

Toontown 30th September 2015 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10903934)
So you're rooting for the Taliban so your narrative can be more true?

I have also observed him predicting a future course of events in which his assertions will be shown to be correct.

Argument by prediction of future correctness of the argument. Not really an invalid form of argument, so long as the future verification arrives in a timely manner.

And if verification does not arrive in a timely manner, the whole thing can be swept under the rug and forgotten.

The Atheist 30th September 2015 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10903934)
So you're rooting for the Taliban so your narrative can be more true?

Nice work yet again.

I'm no more rooting for the Taliban than the USA. In case you hadn't noticed, I think all of the sick clowns with guns should put them away and grow some actual balls instead of having to have a gun to prove it.

I've said on numerous occasions also that all violence is bad.

The only reason this thread even exists is because you tried to raise a nonsensical position that Afghanistan is better off since the invasion by USA in 2001.

I am now proving my point that it is not by posting evidence of the monumental mess Afghanistan is still in, despite 14 bloody years of morons from USA trying to sort it out.

The Brits couldn't do in the 19th century.

The Russians couldn't do it in the 20th century.

USA couldn't do it in the 21st century.

Jrrarglblarg 30th September 2015 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10904135)

I've said on numerous occasions also that all violence is bad.

Oh dear gods and monsters please spare us from the naive idealism of youth and privilege.

Joey McGee 30th September 2015 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10904135)
I'm no more rooting for the Taliban than the USA. In case you hadn't noticed, I think all of the sick clowns with guns should put them away and grow some actual balls instead of having to have a gun to prove it.

I think it's amazing that someone in the world thinks things that are this stupid. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to get this far. So Americans go to war not because they want to prevent evil, but because they think no one will think they have balls if they don't go kill people. Amazing.
Quote:

The only reason this thread even exists is because you tried to raise a nonsensical position that Afghanistan is better off since the invasion by USA in 2001.
It's a proven fact. You reject statistics in favor of emotional reasoning which is how you maintain these incredibly stupid beliefs. Also, the Afghan public supported the overthrow of the Taliban as a good thing. You're completely full of ****.
Quote:

I am now proving my point that it is not by posting evidence of the monumental mess Afghanistan is still in, despite 14 bloody years of morons from USA trying to sort it out.
No, you're trying to say that because things still aren't perfect, they aren't better, that's super stupid.

Kunduz will be retaken eventually. I hope you cry when it happens.

The Atheist 30th September 2015 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg (Post 10904174)
Oh dear gods and monsters please spare us from the naive idealism of youth and privilege.

I can be absolutely certain neither of those apply to me, so whatever you were trying to imply is incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10904241)
No, you're trying to say that because things still aren't perfect, they aren't better, that's super stupid.

A'stan appears to be in a state approaching civil war right now.

That's no improvement on the state prior to 9/11, and I would certainly call it a deterioration. What do you call it?

Some things improved while the Doughboys were there with their fancy guns, and I admitted that, but as always, they come creeping out of the mountains when the big guns are gone. Even your planes and drones seem to be unable to stop the Taliban at the moment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10904241)
Kunduz will be retaken eventually. I hope you cry when it happens.

That is a really bad attempt to take some kind of moral high ground.

Why would I cry if the bad guys lose? Like I said to Darth yesterday, if I didn't throw electronic grenades at Yanks I'd be crying in the corner for both bloody sides.

At least they're mainly Afghans fighting Afghans, and while I despise both sides, at least they aren't being manipulated [too much] by their invaders.

I love the way you try to hide behind the fact that I am anti-US.

That's laughably incorrect. I am only anti US warfare. If they kept their weapons at home, I'd love you guys.

Joey McGee 30th September 2015 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10904446)
A'stan appears to be in a state approaching civil war right now.

You also believe the Taliban is "back in the driver's seat" you're completely out of it.
Quote:

That's no improvement on the state prior to 9/11, and I would certainly call it a deterioration. What do you call it?
You have provided no evidence of this, it's incredibly delusional. I have provided evidence of the opposite, you choose to just ignore it, why do you even post on forums? Do you really think anyone cares what you have to say when you make claims without evidence and ignore evidence to the contrary?
Quote:

Some things improved while the Doughboys were there with their fancy guns, and I admitted that, but as always, they come creeping out of the mountains when the big guns are gone. Even your planes and drones seem to be unable to stop the Taliban at the moment.
The town is back in Afghan hands, the AA and their special forces had no problem taking it back, US airstrikes helped. This was always without a doubt the only possible outcome. This much should have been obvious to you. But, you know nothing about war and Afghanistan, you never research anything you believe, you talk out of your ass and never provide evidence, I'm embarrassed for you honestly...
Quote:

That is a really bad attempt to take some kind of moral high ground.
Why would I cry if the bad guys lose?
I think you would realize that there is something emotionally wrong with you that is causing you to hate the "warmongers" and that your disappointment that the US-backed Afghans took it back so easily would show you that the reason you have all of these fact-free positions says more about you than it does anything else.
Quote:

Like I said to Darth yesterday, if I didn't throw electronic grenades at Yanks I'd be crying in the corner for both bloody sides.
So that's why you can't help yourself from these hate-based rants and incredibly stupid claims with no evidence... because you're so mad at the Americans for causing you to be sad over war you lash out?
Quote:

At least they're mainly Afghans fighting Afghans, and while I despise both sides, at least they aren't being manipulated [too much] by their invaders.
So you admit you just have emotional problems with war no matter what good it brings about?
Quote:

I love the way you try to hide behind the fact that I am anti-US.

That's laughably incorrect. I am only anti US warfare. If they kept their weapons at home, I'd love you guys.
You don't know what your for and against, you're anti-war for emotional reasons, your claims and beliefs make no sense.

Joey McGee 30th September 2015 09:43 PM

Government: Afghan forces retake Kunduz from Taliban

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/asia/a...aliban-attack/

The Atheist 30th September 2015 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey McGee (Post 10904655)
You also believe the Taliban is "back in the driver's seat" you're completely out of it. You have provided no evidence of this, it's incredibly delusional.

Heck, an awful lot of reports coming out of A'stan in the past 24 hours show the Taliban kicking a lot of A'stan army butt, and it appears from conspiracist sources like New York Times that they are still a major problem or control a very large part of the country.

Delusional NYT.

Joey McGee 30th September 2015 10:10 PM

Does the NYT support your belief that they are "back in the driver's seat"? Absolutely not. All they say on this page is that "Insurgents continue to attack and move freely in other areas, mostly rural" Mostly rural so, nothing important. The Taliban tried to take over a city and set up religious schools and Sharia law, those guys are mostly dead now. That's what happened. So, they are clearly still weak. Your narrative has no support from evidence, or from respectable sources, and your only attempt to show this was incredibly stupid.

PhantomWolf 30th September 2015 11:39 PM

So in 2001 before the invasion the Taliban controlled 90% of the country and looked on to take the rest. Today they control 15% of the country and have managed to retake 1 city from a democratically elected Afghani Government, yet this somehow makes the current situation worse than it was when they controlled 90% of the country, banned girls from getting educated, banned women from work or even appearing in public without being in a full burqua, banned kite flying, humming, singing, painting, western goods, and imposed a strict sharia law on the people.... Hmmmm...ok. :rolleyes:

The Atheist 1st October 2015 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 10904726)
So in 2001 before the invasion the Taliban controlled 90% of the country and looked on to take the rest. Today they control 15% of the country and have managed to retake 1 city from a democratically elected Afghani Government,...

How many people were dying in Afghanistan before the invasion?

How long before the Taliban re-take the entire country?

They control 15% but are influencing much larger areas.

I will gladly (and have already) stated that as of this minute, most Afghans are better off than pre-2001. That is balanced by the lack of war inside the country at that time. As usual, it depends what you think it "better" an evil government that nevertheless allows people to live a life, or be in constant danger of bombing? (from either side)

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 10904726)
...yet this somehow makes the current situation worse than it was when they controlled 90% of the country, banned girls from getting educated, banned women from work or even appearing in public without being in a full burqua, banned kite flying, humming, singing, painting, western goods, and imposed a strict sharia law on the people.... Hmmmm...ok. :rolleyes:

While I despise them, I don't believe any of those crimes against humanity rate the death penalty.

Joey McGee 1st October 2015 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 10904769)
How many people were dying in Afghanistan before the invasion?

A lot, between the massacres and the civil war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...996–2001)

Why do you pretend to know what you're talking about?

Quote:

How long before the Taliban re-take the entire country?
Never. This has a zero percent chance of happening.

Quote:

I will gladly (and have already) stated that as of this minute, most Afghans are better off than pre-2001. That is balanced by the lack of war inside the country at that time.
You really think that that there was no war in Afghanistan before the invasion? That's mindbogglingly ignorant...

Quote:

As usual, it depends what you think it "better" an evil government that nevertheless allows people to live a life, or be in constant danger of bombing?
We know that the Afghan public overwhelmingly supported the invasion and overthrow of the Taliban as a good thing, if you ever met a real Afghan and told them what you think, they'd laugh in your face! And the facts of quality of life don't lie.

Quote:

While I despise them, I don't believe any of those crimes against humanity rate the death penalty.
Empty moral posturing...

How about you take a year off, educate yourself on the war, and then come back and try and defend your opinion?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.