I'm wondering why after 9/11 there wasn't just an all-out brutal rape war to forcefully take Afghanistan and annex it as a property of the good ol' USA. It'd be like having another Arizona, except with even less to do. Or you could put casinos there and it'd be like another Nevada.
Instead we have this economically painful occupation you can hardly call a war that's taking years & years. And how hard can it be to destroy these people with all the technology and weapons we have compared to the shitty makeshift equipment they're fighting with?
After all, isn't that sorta how we started? Taking this most of this land forcefully from the Native Americans? So why can't we just forcefully take some more land that way, especially since there was actually a REASON (9/11) to do it?
__________________________
✝ I'm a Christian ✝
Imperialism is generally frowned upon these days.
You sir are an idiot and possibly a troll.
Besides we have an active Afghanistan thread at the moment...
At 9/26/09 12:43 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: You sir are an idiot and possibly a troll.
Besides we have an active Afghanistan thread at the moment...
Sorry, didn't know about that thread. And I thought it'd be Ok to start one on the topic of annexing it. I'm definitely not a troll.
"..with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response.." - Wikipedia
Call me what you will. I just think war, if it's done... should be all-out brute force, or should not be done at all. And with things the USA has done in the past, it should not be that outlandish, or controversial.
__________________________
✝ I'm a Christian ✝
At 9/26/09 12:56 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: Call me what you will. I just think war, if it's done... should be all-out brute force, or should not be done at all.
Depends on the goals. There are greater rewards in winning hearts and minds than in winning barren wasteland that you made into a barren wasteland.
And with things the USA has done in the past, it should not be that outlandish, or controversial.
We haven't use anywhere near our entire military might since World War II.
At 9/25/09 11:42 PM, KennyD wrote: Imperialism is generally frowned upon these days.
This ^^^
Many, many, other countries may not like that.
Anyway. No, we don't have a reason because the people, the country, of Afghanistan did nothing to us. If you can prove me wrong, please do. And even if the whole thing was, why should the people suffer? No. All a war should EVER be is making sure the threat to yourself is gone. That isn't the case here. The people of Afghanistan don't deserve this punishment you propose.
Render Unto Caesar
Why in god's name would you want a poor, shit hole, Islam majority nation as part of your country.
You think the current war is expensive, then hoo-boy.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 9/26/09 03:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Why in god's name would you want a poor, shit hole, Islam majority nation as part of your country.
It could be whatever we make it. Bomb the shit out of key areas and brutally take the place. Then the rebuilding process should spur economic growth and it wouldn't necessarily be a "Islam majority" or whatever you wanna call the place.
Build some casinos, create infrastructure with all the creation other regular businesses... Maybe create incentives for our people to colonize there like low, or no taxes, or something. Pretty soon you see booming economy. Sure there might be some terrorist groups that missed getting incinerated but our superior military forces can get 'em as they find 'em.
I see it as just land, our country is made up of our citizens.
__________________________
✝ I'm a Christian ✝
well Afghanistan has +6 imperialist resistance, -10 to law and order, a base production rate of 2, and has the Radical Islam modifier. it makes it very hard to roll a successful roll to take them over. Many have tried. all have failed.
what we need to do is go in, soften them up, give them modern conveniences like TVs and Microwaves, then watch their Radical Islam modifier and their imperialist resistance die off, then take then over.
we tried it with Japan, except they figured out how to take US over by sending our children and some adults Anime and Sushi.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 9/25/09 11:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: I'm wondering why after 9/11 there wasn't just an all-out brutal rape war to forcefully take Afghanistan and annex it as a property of the good ol' USA. It'd be like having another Arizona, except with even less to do. Or you could put casinos there and it'd be like another Nevada.
As someone already said Afghans would then have the sams as any other Americans, their would be little stopping most of the population their from moving to mainland USA where living standards are a bit better.
After all, isn't that sorta how we started? Taking this most of this land forcefully from the Native Americans? So why can't we just forcefully take some more land that way, especially since there was actually a REASON (9/11) to do it?
No that would be the British empire who done that. America as we know it today formed as a break-away from the empire so what your actually suggesting here goes against what your actual country was formed on and that is freedom from imperialism!
You just got told your own history :P
At 9/26/09 09:32 AM, Jon-86 wrote: No that would be the British empire who done that. America as we know it today formed as a break-away from the empire so what your actually suggesting here goes against what your actual country was formed on and that is freedom from imperialism!
You just got told your own history :P
Just because the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed doesn't mean people here didn't think of themselves as Americans already. So what you're saying is most Colonists thought of themselves as the British Empire and as soon as the Declaration of Independence is signed everything they did before is just washed away and blamed on the British? "got told"? Not hardly.
__________________________
✝ I'm a Christian ✝
At 9/26/09 10:46 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: Just because the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed doesn't mean people here didn't think of themselves as Americans already. So what you're saying is most Colonists thought of themselves as the British Empire and as soon as the Declaration of Independence is signed everything they did before is just washed away and blamed on the British? "got told"? Not hardly.
I never mentioned anything about signing paper! And yes colonists did consider themselves British, the native Americans no but the people who invaded the place and wiped them out. Your original white protestant descendants did. The reason America actually broke away was because people eventually didn't see the point in paying the British king money or sending goods back. They like any other break-away got good at running their own land and saw an opportunity, formed an army and told the Brits to fuck off.
The idea of an American in favour of imperialism is akin to a member of the equal rights movement in the 50s being in favour of segregation of another race from their own!
At 9/26/09 03:37 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Why in god's name would you want a poor, shit hole, Islam majority nation as part of your country.
BINGO
Also, did you ever think of the consequences of this ever happening in the Middle East? It would raise hell in foreign relations. Hell, we already have a "ally" in Israel and look were it got us. The relationship between the Middle East and United States is already feeble. Let's not make it worse.
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
Well, depending on how things develop, the "you can't be trusted to manage your own affairs" may start to gain some weight. An American administration certainly wouldn't be susceptible to divided tribal loyalties and factionalism.
Never will happen, though. We'd rather lose the war than win it through any sort of oppression, unfortunately.
At 9/26/09 08:49 AM, Korriken wrote: stuff
I wish to have your babies now.
No that would be the British empire who done that. America as we know it today formed as a break-away from the empire so what your actually suggesting here goes against what your actual country was formed on and that is freedom from imperialism!
You say that like America haven't dabbled in imperialism.
GT - LedgeyNG, Steam - Ledgey91, PSN - LedgeyNG
At 9/25/09 11:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: I'm wondering why after 9/11 there wasn't just an all-out brutal rape war to forcefully take Afghanistan and annex it as a property of the good ol' USA. It'd be like having another Arizona, except with even less to do. Or you could put casinos there and it'd be like another Nevada.
Instead we have this economically painful occupation you can hardly call a war that's taking years & years. And how hard can it be to destroy these people with all the technology and weapons we have compared to the shitty makeshift equipment they're fighting with?
After all, isn't that sorta how we started? Taking this most of this land forcefully from the Native Americans? So why can't we just forcefully take some more land that way, especially since there was actually a REASON (9/11) to do it?
Because the entire population is fighting.. it's just like Vietnam if you look at the history books. Americans can't fight an entire population, it's impossible. Also the Afghans don't want casinos and such, or else they'd have them.
Hope you started this thread as a joke, political views like this are very devestating.
How do you propose we simply wipe Afghanistan?
9/11 bombers were Saudis.
You're right about the Native Americans thing.. but that was several decades ago.. I guess nothing has changed. Taking 400 billion dollars worth of oil from Iraq pretending they're liberating it... what a joke.
Its this kinda joke that makes half the planet hate the United States and only a 96th of the world support them.
Cuba 1965
At 9/25/09 11:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: Instead we have this economically painful occupation you can hardly call a war that's taking years & years. And how hard can it be to destroy these people with all the technology and weapons we have compared to the shitty makeshift equipment they're fighting with?
Well.... Its called guerilla warfare. Tell you the truth the taliban are REALLY good at it. There on the defense so that means that they could be hiding anywere waiting for you to go right past were they want you to go. They could literally be across the street waiting in a house for the right moment to shoot. This also means normal tatics wont work on them. Also like said many times before the taliban want you to be mean to all of its citizens, that supports there idea of amercians being nothing but rulers and rapists who want to kill everybody. In this kind of war you can't afford to make your enemys population to mad.
I can haz cheeseburgur?
At 9/26/09 10:32 PM, Ledgey wrote:No that would be the British empire who done that. America as we know it today formed as a break-away from the empire so what your actually suggesting here goes against what your actual country was formed on and that is freedom from imperialism!You say that like America haven't dabbled in imperialism.
No I was informing that person on their own history. Their claim was Americans took out the natives but in actual fact it was the British. And I wouldn't call proxy wars and what America is doing now imperialism, occupation aye its that. But America isn't looking to colonise places as far as I know. Imperialism is a different kettle of fish, and its a cuntish way to go about running a country, basically satisfying the greed of the aristocracy.
We need more revolutions and 'off with their head' business, the way France done it :)
No I was informing that person on their own history. Their claim was Americans took out the natives but in actual fact it was the British.
Certainly it was started by the British, the Spanish, the French etc, but the Americans continued it from then on. Here, have a wiki link, it's as textbook as can be. I'd dig around for a better link but I thought it'd be common knowledge that America pushed native control off of the North American continent.
So before like, you know, trying to 'teach' other people about their own history, atleast fine tune it before you do.
And I wouldn't call proxy wars and what America is doing now imperialism, occupation aye its that. But America isn't looking to colonise places as far as I know. Imperialism is a different kettle of fish, and its a cuntish way to go about running a country, basically satisfying the greed of the aristocracy.
They're obviously not literally imperialist, and maybe less so now than previously, but there is little doubt that imperialism has existed in the US in the past. For example, the Philippine-American War.
We need more revolutions and 'off with their head' business, the way France done it :)
Sure, aslong as I can avoid the escargots and the annoying accents.
GT - LedgeyNG, Steam - Ledgey91, PSN - LedgeyNG
At 9/26/09 09:32 AM, Jon-86 wrote:
No that would be the British empire who done that. America as we know it today formed as a break-away from the empire so what your actually suggesting here goes against what your actual country was formed on and that is freedom from imperialism!
You just got told your own history :P
No, Imperialism was viewed as fine by America actually, they just as Imperialistic as any other country, they even competed with the German empire for the Pacific Islands!
If we annex it we will get the same problem empires in the past faced, the cost for maintaining it does not make up for what we get in return, that and IIRC Imperialism was banned by the UN
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 9/27/09 09:34 AM, Freedomblades wrote: Also like said many times before the taliban want you to be mean to all of its citizens, that supports there idea of amercians being nothing but rulers and rapists who want to kill everybody. In this kind of war you can't afford to make your enemys population to mad.
Why, because the civilians will fight with those same shitty weapons?
I've said it before in other threads; most people do not share the jihadist, self-sacrificing mentality of Al-Queda and all the indignation, nationalism, and xenophobia will collapse before the survival instinct does. There would be uprisings, riots, more bombings, and the devastating response to these attacks would discourage any future resistance pretty quickly.
Not pretty, but it'd work.
Points on Americas imperialism taken! And I said told not teach.
At 9/27/09 11:54 AM, Ledgey wrote: Sure, aslong as I can avoid the escargots and the annoying accents.
Annoying accents? A French accent speaking English is one of the cutest their is, but I agree with the escargots after trying them. Although if push came to shove and their was nothing else their, its not the worst thing.
It's a dump that has almost nothing we want.
It's not even WORTH conquering, especially at the insane cost it would come at both in money and in US army lives.
The taliban are straight out of medieval europe. Outsiders can't deal with those numbskulls, the only change will come from within. We have to spend efforts to rebuild the country with secular values. Once the people become rich and educated enough, the taliban will be FUCKED.
But that'll take decades.
Annoying accents? A French accent speaking English is one of the cutest their is, but I agree with the escargots after trying them. Although if push came to shove and their was nothing else their, its not the worst thing.
The females are a-ok. Male (basing off my old git of a french tutor) accents annoy me, they sound pretentious and annoying. But then I'm generalising. Anyway, I digress.
GT - LedgeyNG, Steam - Ledgey91, PSN - LedgeyNG
At 9/27/09 07:11 PM, Ledgey wrote: The females are a-ok. Male (basing off my old git of a french tutor) accents annoy me
Thats because your a man :)
But if you were a lassie then am sure the younger French men (not old gits) would be more interesting.
Assuming everyone's a heterosexual of course :P
At 9/25/09 11:27 PM, mrgreg846 wrote: I'm wondering why after 9/11 there wasn't just an all-out brutal rape war to forcefully take Afghanistan and annex it as a property of the good ol' USA. It'd be like having another Arizona, except with even less to do. Or you could put casinos there and it'd be like another Nevada.
Instead we have this economically painful occupation you can hardly call a war that's taking years & years. And how hard can it be to destroy these people with all the technology and weapons we have compared to the shitty makeshift equipment they're fighting with?
After all, isn't that sorta how we started? Taking this most of this land forcefully from the Native Americans? So why can't we just forcefully take some more land that way, especially since there was actually a REASON (9/11) to do it?
it's simple. public opinion. if america just goes in & starts slaughtering people, all the other countries are going to hate them. also, the terrorists will use this golden opportunity to get citizens to rise for their cause. then america will have an even harder time then they are now getting rid of them.
Despite imperialism being bad these days I'll explain other things wrong.
We don't want it.
It's a massive Islamic state with little to no ecinomic gain unless the US wants to take up the drug trade. The only reason we are still there is just to prevent a resurgence of the Taliban and prevent any kind of terroristic hiding place for al Queda or any other groups.
As far as I'm concerned we should get the hell out because all reasons being there are pretty much gone.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
