Picture of the day

[Warbird_2006]

[kind of American approach. I am not surprised at all.

QUOTE=Desert_Fox;9934519]Well, that reminded me of something....

This is an actual video shown in Argentina for Children... Except the subtitles are NOT original, but they are damn close... Prepare yourself for a hilarious 15 minutes!

[youtube]VKkcTpCur7g[/youtube][/QUOTE]

 

[Sharps '63]

WW1? Not necessary. Diplomacy could have fixed that.

- Empires were crumbling. Germany was arming up. War was inevitable

WW2 - necessary. Diplomacy was attempted and failed.

- Fascism had to be stopped. Hitler used diplomacy to his advantage, buying time

Korea? Hard to say, but likely necessary, as the North, supported by the Chinese, would have happily consumed the south. Call it "humanitarian aid by other means".

- Cold War mentality. Communism was the big Bogey Man

Vietnam? Propping up a crooked wanker and his family for the sake of democracy is an old excuse, and no longer valid.

- Then Sen. JFK was a staunch supporter of French Indo-China. The US inherited the anti-Viet Minh stance after Dien Bien Phu

Afghanistan? Pointless and tragic and not a little heartbreaking. 158 Canadians died for that place. I'm not sure what we've accomplished.

- Instead of going into Iraq, we opted for Afghanistan. Net benefit to the Afghans - zip

Sending people into potentially lethal situations for vague or ambiguous reasons is morally wrong. Their sacrifice should count for something. We should, as a people, be able to say to the widows and parents and children left behind that "your loved one, the piece of you you can never have back, died so we could do this real, concrete thing." Anything else is a horrible lie.

- "When they ask you why we died,
tell them that our fathers lied." Kipling

 

[RMXC51]

Don't forget that all WW1 did was set the stage and conditions for WW2.

Anybody got more pictures?

 

[grelmar]

Afghanistan? Pointless and tragic and not a little heartbreaking. 158 Canadians died for that place. I'm not sure what we've accomplished.

- Instead of going into Iraq, we opted for Afghanistan. Net benefit to the Afghans - zip

I tend to disagree there. Going into Afghanistan had a purpose - toppling a theocracy who seemed more than willing to allow a well funded, organized, terrorist operation to set up headquarters and training inside their borders, as well as fund and protect them.

The problem wasn't so much going in, it was staying in. Once the Talib had been toppled, and the Al-Qaeda bases destroyed and fighters scattered, there was no clear plan on what to "do" next, and that lead to the decade long quagmire.

As a westerner, I don't pretend to understand the complexity of the culture in the region. And I don't need to. A thoroughly sound thrashing of the established government, and the AQ camps was the message that needed to be sent, and a message that is understood by all cultures and nations. It's the equivalent of Sean Connery's quote in The Untouchables - "Never bring a knife to a gunfight."

If we'd toppled the regime and left, it would have worked out far better. By staying, we justified AQ's actions - the strutting, conquering, Western Crusaders out to destroy their culture and occupy their land.

It was Iraq where the US and its allies had no business going. That was a son conducting a revenge mission for his father, and allowing his cronies to pillage, plunder, and profit, off the backs of idealistic young men who had been tricked into thinking they were fighting terrorism. If anything, Sadam Hussein was a more effective deterrent to terrorism in the region than the occupying Western Allies were.

 

[Sharps '63]

No invading army has ever conquered Afghanistan. The Brits failed, the Russians failed, both with far greater resources committed.

Kind of like Russia - Napoleon and Hitler learned the hard way, at the expense of their soldiers.

I tend to disagree there. Going into Afghanistan had a purpose - toppling a theocracy who seemed more than willing to allow a well funded, organized, terrorist operation to set up headquarters and training inside their borders, as well as fund and protect them.

The problem wasn't so much going in, it was staying in. Once the Talib had been toppled, and the Al-Qaeda bases destroyed and fighters scattered, there was no clear plan on what to "do" next, and that lead to the decade long quagmire.

If we'd toppled the regime and left, it would have worked out far better. By staying, we justified AQ's actions - the strutting, conquering, Western Crusaders out to destroy their culture and occupy their land.

It was Iraq where the US and its allies had no business going. That was a son conducting a revenge mission for his father, and allowing his cronies to pillage, plunder, and profit, off the backs of idealistic young men who had been tricked into thinking they were fighting terrorism. If anything, Sadam Hussein was a more effective deterrent to terrorism in the region than the occupying Western Allies were.

 

[points]

The Falklands. I just finished reading a history of the Falklands war by a couple of Brits. Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins "The Battle for the Falklands"
An eye opener. Wikkipedia will not tell you everything. Both sides had their fair share of stupid to go around and both sides have equaly legit claims. to the islands. I personally side with the Brits only because the Argies threw down the glove and invaded when it was far from called for but that does not diminish their claim. Just the moral high ground.

 

[screwtape]

Afghanistan? Pointless and tragic and not a little heartbreaking. 158 Canadians died for that place. I'm not sure what we've accomplished.


- Instead of going into Iraq, we opted for Afghanistan. Net benefit to the Afghans - zip

I tend to disagree there. Going into Afghanistan had a purpose - toppling a theocracy who seemed more than willing to allow a well funded, organized, terrorist operation to set up headquarters and training inside their borders, as well as fund and protect them.

The problem wasn't so much going in, it was staying in. Once the Talib had been toppled, and the Al-Qaeda bases destroyed and fighters scattered, there was no clear plan on what to "do" next, and that lead to the decade long quagmire.

As a westerner, I don't pretend to understand the complexity of the culture in the region. And I don't need to. A thoroughly sound thrashing of the established government, and the AQ camps was the message that needed to be sent, and a message that is understood by all cultures and nations. It's the equivalent of Sean Connery's quote in The Untouchables - "Never bring a knife to a gunfight."

If we'd toppled the regime and left, it would have worked out far better. By staying, we justified AQ's actions - the strutting, conquering, Western Crusaders out to destroy their culture and occupy their land.

It was Iraq where the US and its allies had no business going. That was a son conducting a revenge mission for his father, and allowing his cronies to pillage, plunder, and profit, off the backs of idealistic young men who had been tricked into thinking they were fighting terrorism. If anything, Sadam Hussein was a more effective deterrent to terrorism in the region than the occupying Western Allies were.

That is frankly what I always thought about Afghanistan too.

For those old enough to remember, there was a similar wave of terrorism in the 1980s, that culminated in the Lockerbie bombing. Islamic terrorists blew up an airliner full of Brits and Americans. Said terrorists were training in camps located in Libya, with apparent complete impunity from anything the West could do about them. In fact everybody who was anybody in the terrorist world from the PLO to the IRA was training there.

Until Lockerbie. In response, the Americans flew a couple B-1 bombers from the US, staged through the UK, and bombed Qaddafi's palace in Tripoli. They didn't kill Qaddafi (although I think he may have been injured) but they did kill some members of his family as well as close supporters. And they severely dented his world prestige and completely cratered his personal sense of immunity.

The training camps in the Libyan desert were promptly closed for business, and no terrorists staging out of Libya attacked any Western targets again.

When the West first went into Afghanistan, I thought it was the exact same idea - and it should have been. A direct response to 9/11: "You provided the secure base that the terrorists used when they planned and trained for this attack on us. That makes you just as guilty as they are - besides which the leader is still living freely in your country - so we're putting a combat boot up your collective asses."

Something the good old Imperialists, whether Roman, Mongol or 19th century British understood very well indeed: A Punitive Expedition.

When you conduct a Punitive Expedition, you crush your enemy's leadership and make any leaders who aren't killed outright flee in terror. If you feel it is necessary to get the point across, you may then also sack and raze cities, burn crops and even sow the ground with salt. And then you leave, having made your point.

If the West had just crushed the Taliban and forced them to flee in terror, and wiped out every al-Qaeda fighter or base they could get their hands on, and then left ... it would have been an absolutely crushing blow to the prestige and future effectiveness of both organizations and a potent warning to anyone else who wanted to threaten the West. Instead, they stayed. And demonstrated once again, just as the US did in Vietnam, that the modern Western democracies have absolutely no staying power when it comes to taking and holding enemy lands. And now al-Qaeda has the prestige in its originating culture of having outlasted and therefore 'beaten' the entire Western world.

And the entire point of the Punitive Expedition has been lost...

Getting back to pictures, what exactly was that last plane you showed, Dark Alley Dan?

 

[points]

One of the sad things about Afgahnistan is that the mission kept changing to the point we never really knew why we were there. At one point it was stated that we were losing troops so that little girls could go to school. HUH? And we stayed to prop up just one more corupt regime.

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

Getting back to pictures, what exactly was that last plane you showed, Dark Alley Dan?

Early P51 (a B model, perhaps) with the armour and guns removed, a second seat installed behind the pilot, and a ###y-as-hell paint job. Apparently, the USAF allowed "war weary" aircraft to be used in this manner during the war. Squadron hack and general fart-around airplane.

Bomber outfits turned used-up bombers into "assembly ships" - painted 'em garish colours so they'd be easily spotted. Allowed formations to organize on the outbound trip.

 

[XRCD011]

More B17s with Poka-Dots here http://www.j-aircraft.com/captured/capturedby/b-17/captured_b17.htm

 

[Sharps '63]

For a little insight into the Brit experience in Afghanistan and the NW Frontier, find a copy of "The Far Pavilions". While a novel, it very much serves to illustrate the mind set of the people in the region and their aversion to foreign intervention in the politics and life of their country.
Bottom line - they want NOTHING to do with our culture, religion, politics, education, etc., and resent the hell out of any attempt at change. It will happen when they want on their terms.
Exterminating their leadership would have accomplished nothing, as a new leader would emerge and carry on the fight. Like they said - "The West has the watches. We have the time."

That is frankly what I always thought about Afghanistan too.

When you conduct a Punitive Expedition, you crush your enemy's leadership and make any leaders who aren't killed outright flee in terror. If you feel it is necessary to get the point across, you may then also sack and raze cities, burn crops and even sow the ground with salt. And then you leave, having made your point.

If the West had just crushed the Taliban and forced them to flee in terror, and wiped out every al-Qaeda fighter or base they could get their hands on, and then left ... it would have been an absolutely crushing blow to the prestige and future effectiveness of both organizations and a potent warning to anyone else who wanted to threaten the West. Instead, they stayed. And demonstrated once again, just as the US did in Vietnam, that the modern Western democracies have absolutely no staying power when it comes to taking and holding enemy lands. And now al-Qaeda has the prestige in its originating culture of having outlasted and therefore 'beaten' the entire Western world.

And the entire point of the Punitive Expedition has been lost...

 

[sail32]

The US Government and the oil companies were happy to negotiate with the Taliban about running a pipeline from the Central Asian Republics to the Indian Ocean, as well as drilling in Afghanistan and it was only after they were turned down that the Taliban became the big bad boogie men.

 

[cristi001]

The US Government and the oil companies were happy to negotiate with the Taliban about running a pipeline from the Central Asian Republics to the Indian Ocean, as well as drilling in Afghanistan and it was only after they were turned down that the Taliban became the big bad boogie men.

never forget the poppy fields... must be a beautiful sight to watch...

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

Picture thread needs more pictures.

What Randy's great grandpa did during the war.

 

[Desert_Fox]

But he's still got his shirt on...?!??

Perhaps he ate too many Luftwaffles?

 

[Dark Alley Dan]

He takes those pants off, those Russkies better watch out.

BTW, "luftwaffles" made me laugh.

Here's a nice colour pic of a Kingfisher:

 

[grelmar]

Picture thread needs more pictures.

What Randy's great grandpa did during the war.

"Schuuuuuuuuuuuuultz!!!"

 

[Fudge Monkey]

The scary part is that Putin is making the same opening moves Hitler made that lead to WW 2, or the Great Patriotic War (Russian: Вели́кая Оте́чественная война́ Velíkaya Otéchestvennaya voyná).

Exactly my thinking, beginning with the Olympics.
Followed by the Russian bear taunting the American duck.

 

[Cdn303]

Looks like the pilot is taking a pee.

 

[Kevan]

He takes those pants off, those Russkies better watch out.

BTW, "luftwaffles" made me laugh.

Here's a nice colour pic of a Kingfisher:

That aircraft really resembles one used in a Peter O'Toole movie from years ago called Murphy's War....