• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Who will win the war in Afghanistan

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
The war in Afghanistan is currently the longest in US History, who do you believe is going to win the War? When do you believe the War will be over?

Here are a few options:

1. The Taliban
2. China
3. NATO

What are your thoughts?
 

Ilus_Unistus

Registered Member
I do not believe the US can win the war in Afghanistan. The reason for this is no matter what happens between now and the time the USA leaves Afghanistan, the radical groups will proclaim victory. In many ways this will be a victory for the radicals, as it is their wish the USA leaves the middle east, any part of the middle east. To them it will show weakness and inability to win for the USA.

The people the US and others are fighting in Afghanistan are not any typical army, it is religious radicals just as scattered through out the middle east, there is no way to win a war against an army you can not see.

Sooner or later the USA will withdrawal from Afghanistan and the results will be the same, it seems wise to me to leave sooner than later with less loss of life for US and other supporting countries. To proclaim a war on terrorist is like to proclaim war on cockroaches, you must bring them ALL to extinction or they only breed and spread again in a very little amount of time, it is an impossible feat.

I believe the only real victory's will come from intelligence and prevention. Meaning instead of armies, spy's are the best tools for this type of war.
 

JaneSmith

Registered Member
Walid Phares has a new book out about the Coming Revolution in Islam.
Once the people in Islam can have a voice rather than the heavy hand of Sharia with brutal punishment then democracy might have a chance. The Saudi Princes will have to be forced out of control by the people and the clerics and Mullahs will have to be removed for the people in 57 OIC countries to have a chance at better human rights and freedom.

According to open sources that should happen 2011-2013, which will include attacks on US soil. Terrorism enforces Sharia in the 57 OIC countries for the 1.5 billion Muslims. Unfortunately this also allows them to intentionally un-assimilate into the West.

Guess we'll have to wait until WMD are used to do anything that will forward progress. Until then it will be a tit-for-tat in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hopefully those WMD aren't nukes... but I'm afraid that's the direction it's going.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
More than likely, the present government of Afghanistan will just get cozy with the Taliban once it's all over, since they've been strongly signaling as much. Since Afghanistan still won't technically be Taliban controlled per se, if that were to occur, can we call it a draw?

Ilus_Unistus said:
I believe the only real victory's will come from intelligence and prevention. Meaning instead of armies, spy's are the best tools for this type of war.
Yeah, that's more-or-less my thoughts as well.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Someone asked Trump about this and I rather liked his idea. We declare victory, pull the troops out and announce to the world with a huge fanfare that we won. If we say we won, then yeah in a sense we did win.
 

JaneSmith

Registered Member
If we don't make an defensive move by being in Afghanistan then the trouble will spill into our borders.
The goal of the Taliban isn't just to rule in Afghanistan. Their government is the same as the 57 OIC countries who have openly declared they want world domination.
This isn't some little skirmish between some mountain poppy farmers and the US interests. This is not a military in uniform battling on a battlefield. This war is about the goal of an Islamic government (Saudi, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and the rest of the 57) wanting their law, Sharia, to be the law of the earth.
In Western terms we think Afghanistan is an independent country. They are not. They do not go by Western borders or rules.
Now what?
 

Bjarki

Registered Member
This war is about the goal of an Islamic government (Saudi, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and the rest of the 57) wanting their law, Sharia, to be the law of the earth.
These countries form in no way a unified interest group. Nor is Sharia the goal of these countries, except maybe for Saudi. And believe it or not, Saudi is actually the biggest US ally in the region.


My opinion: it will be the same as in Iraq. The violence slowly decreases and peace and order is slowly restored (you can't wage jihad for years in a row, you need a break once in a while). At the head of the state will be an insignificant, corrupt puppet who is kept merely in power by the approval of the western allies. 10 years later a new generation overthrows him, a civil war breaks out and the pre-war status quo is ultimately retrieved: a regime of religious fanatics in Afghanistan and most likely a religious-inspired Sunni dictatorship in Iraq (rather than the socialist regime of Saddam). Both holding the same grudge against the west as Iran has had in the past. Biggest loser will be Iran though, with a nutty nation on its eastern borders and an agressive Sunni nation in the south. 21st century will be another bloody one for the Middle east I reckon.

:whistling:
 

JaneSmith

Registered Member
These countries form in no way a unified interest group. Nor is Sharia the goal of these countries, except maybe for Saudi. And believe it or not, Saudi is actually the biggest US ally in the region.


My opinion: it will be the same as in Iraq. The violence slowly decreases and peace and order is slowly restored (you can't wage jihad for years in a row, you need a break once in a while). At the head of the state will be an insignificant, corrupt puppet who is kept merely in power by the approval of the western allies. 10 years later a new generation overthrows him, a civil war breaks out and the pre-war status quo is ultimately retrieved: a regime of religious fanatics in Afghanistan and most likely a religious-inspired Sunni dictatorship in Iraq (rather than the socialist regime of Saddam). Both holding the same grudge against the west as Iran has had in the past. Biggest loser will be Iran though, with a nutty nation on its eastern borders and an agressive Sunni nation in the south. 21st century will be another bloody one for the Middle east I reckon.

:whistling:
You can Google the OIC and it will tell you that yes indeed these countries are unified.
If you want to think in Western terms you can believe anything you want, that's called cognitive bias, and it's your choice.
Islam is not the West. Islam doesn't want to be the West. Islam wants the West to be part of dar ul Islam. You can Google that too.

PS, while you are at it, look up jihad. Your post uses it out of context.
 

Bjarki

Registered Member
You can Google the OIC and it will tell you that yes indeed these countries are unified.
If you want to think in Western terms you can believe anything you want, that's called cognitive bias, and it's your choice.
Islam is not the West. Islam doesn't want to be the West. Islam wants the West to be part of dar ul Islam. You can Google that too.

PS, while you are at it, look up jihad. Your post uses it out of context.
The OIC is a multi-national organization much like the UN is. Its members have different agenda's and only agree on some basic points, such as the validity of the palestine state. The Islamic nations do not have a foreign policy that goes beyond the limits of the middle east and southern Asia. They want to accumulate power in those particular regions, for themselves, not for Islam.
Wikileaks told us that the Saudi's actually pressed for an attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran. That certainly wouldn't be the case if they had felt, in any way, to have similar foreign targets.
Islam is not a unified front, but a term used to describe a variety of sub-sects that all trace back to Muhammed, but in no way agree on fundamental religious dogma's. The main division is Shi'ite and Sunnite. The very bloody war between sji'ite Iran and sunnite Iraq in the 80's was also interpreted as a holy war by those nations involved.

Islam to me, is a religion with a very agressive nature, but until now its power has never been focused on one unified enemy, one unbeliever. Iraq is a good example. The insurgency may be aimed at the 'western occupation troops', but the vast majority of victims have been killed because they were of a different current in Islam.

Rescuers used bare hands and shovels Wednesday to claw through clay houses shattered by an onslaught of suicide bombings that killed at least 250 and possibly as many as 500 members of an ancient religious sect in the deadliest attack of the Iraq war.

The U.S. military blamed al Qaeda in Iraq, and an American commander called the assault an "act of ethnic cleansing."

The victims of Tuesday night's coordinated attack by four suicide bombers were Yazidis, a small Kurdish-speaking sect that has been targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/15/iraq/main3168487.shtml
 
Last edited:

JaneSmith

Registered Member
The OIC is a multi-national organization much like the UN is. Its members have different agenda's and only agree on some basic points, such as the validity of the palestine state. The Islamic nations do not have a foreign policy that goes beyond the limits of the middle east and southern Asia. They want to accumulate power in those particular regions, for themselves, not for Islam.
Wikileaks told us that the Saudi's actually pressed for an attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran. That certainly wouldn't be the case if they had felt, in any way, to have similar foreign targets.
Islam is not a unified front, but a term used to describe a variety of sub-sects that all trace back to Muhammed, but in no way agree on fundamental religious dogma's. The main division is Shi'ite and Sunnite. The very bloody war between sji'ite Iran and sunnite Iraq in the 80's was also interpreted as a holy war by those nations involved.
Your assessment seems like opinion rather than practical information that applies to the world. The OIC does in fact own al Qaeda and is based on Isalmic theology.
Many American/Western people like you have the same worldview and thus can't understand 911 and the over 15000 other terrorism attacks since 911.
Yes Muslims are killing Muslims, but also Thai, Hindu, Americans, British, random tourists, all in the name of Islam. They are doing this as one united front. If you would read their statements they will tell you they are doing this. But believe what you want to and let's sing Kumbiya.
 
Top