Is the game still in development?

Even if I'm usually on the other side, in this one I have to say I'm with LOAF.

You can't consider Afghanistan and Iraq (selling weapons to them) as anything else than a strategic move that backfired.

But this I say from the outside. A similar situation is the dirty war, which had US support. Those who suffered it can't think much of US government for supporting that hell.

Now here's a theory: the US supported the taliban but, unlike what happened with the dirty war, later realized their mistake (they weren't all good and were unleashing hell on the local people - which, for what I hear, is true). So, not only it retired its support, but started fighting it and trying to overthrow this Taliban government. I guess they felt guilty. Am I close?
 
You can't consider Afghanistan and Iraq (selling weapons to them) as anything else than a strategic move that backfired.
Click to expand...

I don't think they backfired at all -- both wars accomplished exactly what the United States wanted, stopping the creation of another Soviet satellite and proving to Iran that we were willing to oppose it over its public support for terrorism.

Claiming they "backfired" is like saying the United States didn't win World War II because five years later the aggressor Soviet airforce was still flying the P-39s we sold them to fight Hitler. The two things are completely separate in everyones mind, just as a very succesful foreign policy pursued in the 1980s is wholly separate from events twenty years later.

But this I say from the outside. A similar situation is the dirty war, which had US support. Those who suffered it can't think much of US government for supporting that hell.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a nice thought, but you're putting the cart before the horse -- the United States fought the Soviets and the Iranians in reaction to the fact that these groups *already* had it in for the United States.

Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq war aren't situations where the United States decided to go piss off some friendly country for no reason -- they were cases where the country was reacting to the actions of countries that were already enemies. You're not ever going to win back the hearts and minds of the guys blowing up your airliners and trying to set up nuclear missile silos off your mainland coast... and you certainly can't blame the United States for opposing things like that in the first place. (Unless, of course, you're part of the internet, where all radical Stalinists and Muslim extremists are wholly blameless for their actions.)

Now here's a theory: the US supported the taliban but, unlike what happened with the dirty war, later realized their mistake (they weren't all good and were unleashing hell on the local people - which, for what I hear, is true). So, not only it retired its support, but started fighting it and trying to overthrow this Taliban government. I guess they felt guilty. Am I close?
Click to expand...

Not really. I'd like to live in a country that would be willing to kick the crap out of foreign powers just because they have terrible governments -- but the United States doesn't do that. Invading Afghanistan was directly a response to the September 11th tacks, nothing more and nothing less.

And when you say the US "supported the Taliban", you're hitting a very vauge mark -- we're not talking about the US agreeing with their policies (which became radicalized long after the United States was involved in their war with Russia)... we're talking about the US providing logistical support to Afghanistan for a very brief period during their war with a much, much more threatening enemy.

The internet at large gets stupid confused about this - the United States didn't go around saying the Taliban was okay, ever. It gave the government of Afghanistan weapons to fight off the Russians -- just like the Russians did to the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese. No implied support for any of these groups morals ever... it's just how the cold war was fought. (THe claim also tacitly suggests that the US must have *always* supported the Taliban -- no, the US had opposed them for many, many, many, many years after seeing how they ran their country.)
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't think they backfired at all -- both wars accomplished exactly what the United States wanted, stopping the creation of another Soviet satellite and proving to Iran that we were willing to oppose it over its public support for terrorism.
Click to expand...
Yes... you're right, I meant "had unforeseen (bad) side effects".

Bandit LOAF said:
And when you say the US "supported the Taliban", you're hitting a very vauge mark -- we're not talking about the US agreeing with their policies (which became radicalized long after the United States was involved in their war with Russia)... we're talking about the US providing logistical support to Afghanistan for a very brief period during their war with a much, much more threatening enemy.
Click to expand...
I meant that: provide logistical support, which aided them into becoming as powerful as they became.
 
The United States actually had 8 carriers in 1941
USS Langley CV1 -Sunk 1941
USS Lexington CV2 -sunk 1942
USS Saratoga CV3 -stationed in the ETO
USS Ranger CV4 -stationed in the MTO
USS Yorktown CV5 -Sunk 1942
USS Enterprise CV6 Highest scoring ship in History
USS Wasp CV7 Stationed in ETO then Sunk 1943
USS Hornet CV8 Sunk 1943

Of the 7 to start WW2 only 3 finished, the Enterprise being the only one to see almost continual frontline action. It took untill 1943 for the US to reach full production of Carriers. In terms of Heavy Cruisers we kept most of the ones that we started the war with. Now the IJN had the 11 they started with and the Shinao with its two week career.

As for the non-stopping US bashing. As much as I hate to admit it the field of polotics is not a warm fuzzy place. It is closer to the Roman Coliseum. The US just takes it for what it is. England did it for hundreds of years you dont see us bashing them.
 
my mistake. Still it is less than the Japanese 11. Also As LOAF said the IJN was ready to use carriers the USN wasn't.
It still illustrates my point that we did not go to war with CVLs 100 CVEs 40+ Carriers. We went in with seven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top