View Full Version : Time to get out?
Is it time to get out of Afghanistan? sounds a lot like Vietnam to me, A Corrupt government, engagement limatations, population that doesnt want us there.
Bathinus
10-04-2009, 02:54 PM
What population? The Taliban? I'm sure the people who no longer hve to suffeer under the Taliban rule appreciate the US presence....their kids can finaly go to school
Uh crap here we go again.
I'll leave it with an unexplained yet staunch "No".
rhino
10-04-2009, 02:55 PM
surly you meen the Coalition's presence:roll:
What population? The Taliban? I'm sure the people who no longer hve to suffeer under the Taliban rule appreciate the US presence....their kids can finaly go to school
Why dont they warn troops of pending ambush?
Bathinus
10-04-2009, 03:02 PM
Why dont they warn troops of pending ambush?
i'm sorry, this is a stupid question
rabidrabit
10-04-2009, 03:03 PM
Why dont they warn troops of pending ambush?
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/facepalm.jpg
i'm sorry, this is a stupid question
Tell that to the troops who have been ambushed, if the populas wont support them why should they put their life on the line?
dredger14
10-04-2009, 03:34 PM
Tell that to the troops who have been ambushed, if the populas wont support them why should they put their life on the line?
Honestly how old are you??
stick.up.kid
10-04-2009, 03:37 PM
lol @ this dude...wow
Why dont they warn troops of pending ambush?
For the same reason you won't snitch on your neighborhood drug gang. It could easily mean losing the ability to keep your head on top of your body.
This "lets cut and run" BS is coming from the same people that oppose US involvement in North Korea and pretty much anywhere else. A-Stan being part of South Asia is of little interest to them.
Solution to A-Stan lies in P-Stan. Period.
Try posting a reason why we should stay in Afgan given the situation there, ohhh thats right you dont have a leg to stand on.
For the same reason you won't snitch on your neighborhood drug gang. It could easily mean losing the ability to keep your head on top of your body.
This "lets cut and run" BS is coming from the same people that oppose US involvement in North Korea and pretty much anywhere else. A-Stan being part of South Asia is of little interest to them.
Solution to A-Stan lies in P-Stan. Period.
The lets stay and waste lives crowd have no idea the history of Afgan, not to mention a President who wont give the military the troops and material the commanders on the ground need.
Try posting a reason why we should stay in Afgan given the situation there, ohhh thats right you dont have a leg to stand on.
There is a reason, the same reason we went in there to start with: Not allowing a repeat of 9/11.
if you leave A-Stan to its own devices some very nasty creatures would be crawling all over the place pretty soon who want you to share with them the joys of following a 7th century religious lifestyle that would guarantee you a place in heaven. Guaranteed.
Maverick77
10-04-2009, 03:46 PM
Try posting a reason why we should stay in Afgan given the situation there, ohhh thats right you dont have a leg to stand on.
The Taliban will re take the country and take away the basic rights of the population, killing women for showing the skin on their arm among other things.
Terrorist groups will be able to use the country to train for and prepare attacks on western nations such as the one you most likely live in.
The lets stay and waste lives crowd have no idea the history of Afgan, not to mention a President who wont give the military the troops and material the commanders on the ground need.
Not quite, it requires re-drawing some geographic boundaries, which can be accomplished with dollars instead of bullets. Simply bribe all Pashtun, Baluch warlords to join A-Stan and share the fruits of politcal power in A-Stan whose future would be backed by the financial and military might of west. Let Pakistan stew in its own juice. It might also mean firing the current president of A-Stan, but thats hardly important.
There is a reason, the same reason we went in there to start with: Not allowing a repeat of 9/11.
if you leave A-Stan to its own devices some very nasty creatures would be crawling all over the place pretty soon who want you to share with them the joys of following a 7th century religious lifestyle that would guarantee you a place in heaven. Guaranteed.
If Afgan was the only place they were you would have a point, The Afgan people have to step up and fix the mess there dont forget the 9/11 bombers were from S.Arabia.
Not quite, it requires re-drawing some geographic boundaries, which can be accomplished with dollars instead of bullets. Simply bribe all Pashtun, Baluch warlords to join A-Stan and share the fruits of politcal power in A-Stan whose future would be backed by the financial and military might of west. Let Pakistan stew in its own juice. It might also mean firing the current president of A-Stan, but thats hardly important.
Thats not happening were talking about what is happening and what this President will and wont do, thats why I say why waste our Troops.
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-04-2009, 04:08 PM
Why dont they warn troops of pending ambush?
Because they live there 24/7, as do the Taliban, 'you' don't.
So the question to be asked is why is that?
not to mention a President who wont give the military the troops and material the commanders on the ground need.
Ah, the real reason for this thread becomes clear, "let's **** on Obama again!"
The fact is the campaign in Afghanistan pre-dates Obama's administration by eight years. It's the product of that period we are dealing with, not the last nine months.
Care to admit who was responsible during that time?
Rather than start irrational, juvenile threads, do some research and educate yourself.
/11
If Afgan was the only place they were you would have a point, The Afgan people have to step up and fix the mess there dont forget the 9/11 bombers were from S.Arabia.
9/11 perps were mostly Saudis, however, they were not backed by the Saudi govt. Its very important to remember this important difference. 9/11 perps were backed by the people who controlled A-Stan at the time. Saudis simply signed up.
Another important point to remember is this: Like Somalia, A-stan is a nation that lacks a strong civilized governing authority. However, unlike Somalia, A-Stan is neighbor to an under-achieving but extremely ambitious country called P-Stan. P-Stan has multiple power centers, one of them being its practically autonomous intelligence agency called ISI, another being its army that is NOT under civilian politically elected govt. Both ISI and P-Stan army want to use A-Stan as their backyard for strategic reasons and would be more than happy to sub-let A-Stan to anyone who would keep making the rent and not upset them. If this is allowed to happen, this world is in grave danger because you don't know who the next nasty tenant would be. For all we know the next guy could set up a dirty nukes cash and carry mart over there.
coltfan111
10-04-2009, 04:13 PM
Taking the eye off the ball in A-Stan 2003 was ****-up of monumental proportions, to leave it now would make that 1st mistake look like a stroke of genius.
/11
9/11 perps were mostly Saudis, however, they were not backed by the Saudi govt. Its very important to remember this important difference. 9/11 perps were backed by the people who controlled A-Stan at the time. Saudis simply signed up.
Another important point to remember is this: Like Somalia, A-stan is a nation that lacks a strong civilized governing authority. However, unlike Somalia, A-Stan is neighbor to an under-achieving but extremely ambitious country called P-Stan. P-Stan has multiple power centers, one of them being its practically autonomous intelligence agency called ISI, another being its army that is NOT under civilian politically elected govt. Both ISI and P-Stan army want to use A-Stan as their backyard for strategic reasons and would be more than happy to sub-let A-Stan to anyone who would keep making the rent and not upset them. If this is allowed to happen, this world is in grave danger because you don't know who the next nasty tenant would be. For all we know the next guy could set up a dirty nukes cash and carry mart over there.
Several problems, one the current President will not give the support the commanders need so whats the point of the troops being there?, two the history of the country tells you that foreign troops have never been able to get the Afgans under control.
mrxyz
10-04-2009, 04:18 PM
if you leave A-Stan to its own devices some very nasty creatures would be crawling all over the place pretty soon who want you to share with them the joys of following a 7th century religious lifestyle that would guarantee you a place in heaven. Guaranteed.
The current government is not far from that. Karzai even legalized raping your wife recently, and they need "legitimate purpose" to leave their houses.
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 04:19 PM
Is it time to get out of Afghanistan? sounds a lot like Vietnam to me, A Corrupt government, engagement limatations, population that doesnt want us there.
No but its time for anti war trolls to get out of the MP.net Forum! rofl
PeterG
10-04-2009, 04:19 PM
There is a reason, the same reason we went in there to start with: Not allowing a repeat of 9/11.
if you leave A-Stan to its own devices some very nasty creatures would be crawling all over the place pretty soon who want you to share with them the joys of following a 7th century religious lifestyle that would guarantee you a place in heaven. Guaranteed.
Interestingly, if the motive is to not allow a repeat of 9/11, the US would have to invade Saudi Arabia - almost all the hijackers were saudi citizens, they were fanatical, homicidal religious zealots - because of their saudi wahabi upbringing, they were led by a saudi - Bin Laden.. And the Saudi regime and saudi 'charities' still finance a global network of wahabi mosques, that teaches ultra-violence against the infidels. A global network of what is for all practical purposes, the recruitment stations of the Al Qaeda.
Yet, mysteriously, the saudis seem to be completely off limits - and perfectly safe from the americans.
The US would perhaps have to attack the pakistanis as well - the masterminds behind the taliban. The ISI.. Much more dangerous than the taliban - who simply want to live in the stoneage in Afghanistan. America has been deceived by 'allies' that are in fact their true enemies.
No but its time for anti war trolls to get out of the MP.net Forum! rofl
I thought everyone was Anti War, you are Pro War?
Interestingly, if the motive is to not allow a repeat of 9/11, the US would have to invade Saudi Arabia - almost all the hijackers were saudi citizens, they were fanatical, homicidal religious zealots - because of their saudi wahabi upbringing, they were led by a saudi - Bin Laden.. And the Saudi regime and saudi 'charities' still finance a global network of wahabi mosques, that teaches ultra-violence against the infidels. A global network of what is for all practical purposes, the recruitment stations of the Al Qaeda.
Yet, mysteriously, the saudis seem to be completely off limits - and perfectly safe from the americans.
The US would perhaps have to attack the pakistanis as well - the masterminds behind the taliban. The ISI.. Much more dangerous than the taliban - who simply want to live in the stoneage in Afghanistan. America has been deceived by 'allies' that are in fact their true enemies.
Spot on the mark!
Several problems, one the current President will not give the support the commanders need so whats the point of the troops being there?, two the history of the country tells you that foreign troops have never been able to get the Afgans under control.
You are mistaken on both counts. Obama is still considering his options, he just met with General McChrystal a few days ago. Then there are other nations involved, who would need to be consulted also because their soldiers are also laying down their lives in A-Stan.
You need to learn history of A-Stan outside the pages of Washington Post.
A-Stan is inhabited by mostly indo-european people who were never a nation unless conquered by an invader. The only invader of any real importance is Babur, the same Mongol Turk who later conquered India. The problem with A-Stan is its wretched geography, too many mountains and poor land. Mountaneous regions are poor almost by definition because economic activity is much harder there. Nothing grows on rocks. This also makes mountain people warlike because civil endeavors fetch little. Regarding the fable of Afghans never being under the control of foreigners is a nice mythical tale created during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Afghans have ALWAYS been routed by foreigners, the foreigners simply don't want to stay there because of difficulties in living there. Most invaders moved on to Indian subcontinent whose fertile lands guaranteed immense wealth. British were second important power who considered Afghanistan as a colony but gave up after realizing there's little money to be made there and cost of setting up troop presence was too high. However, British clobbered Aghans rountinely (Google Anglo Afghan wars) and made them sign humiliating treaties.
deadskull
10-04-2009, 04:34 PM
There is a reason, the same reason we went in there to start with: Not allowing a repeat of 9/11.
if you leave A-Stan to its own devices some very nasty creatures would be crawling all over the place pretty soon who want you to share with them the joys of following a 7th century religious lifestyle that would guarantee you a place in heaven. Guaranteed.
The Taliban will re take the country and take away the basic rights of the population, killing women for showing the skin on their arm among other things.
Terrorist groups will be able to use the country to train for and prepare attacks on western nations such as the one you most likely live in.
Yes but since when is it the USA government duty to fight wars on foreign soil just so the populace of the foreign country gets to experience American style democratic socio-economic system?
If Afghans really wanted all that stuff they would have risen up against the Taleban themselves but clearly their priorities lie elsewhere. So why does America have to put its troops in danger and spend billions of dollars just to prop up a semblance of democratic government.
You are mistaken on both counts. Obama is still considering his options, he just met with General McChrystal a few days ago. Then there are other nations involved, who would need to be consulted also because their soldiers are also laying down their lives in A-Stan.
You need to learn history of A-Stan outside the pages of Washington Post.
A-Stan is inhabited by mostly indo-european people who were never a nation unless conquered by an invader. The only invader of any real importance is Babur, the same Mongol Turk who later conquered India. The problem with A-Stan is its wretched geography, too many mountains and poor land. Mountaneous regions are poor almost by definition because economic activity is much harder there. Nothing grows on rocks. This also makes mountain people warlike because civil endeavors fetch little. Regarding the fable of Afghans never being under the control of foreigners is a nice mythical tale created during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Afghans have ALWAYS been routed by foreigners, the foreigners simply don't want to stay there because of difficulties in living there. Most invaders moved on to Indian subcontinent whose fertile lands guaranteed immense wealth. British were second important power who considered Afghanistan as a colony but gave up after realizing there's little money to be made there and cost of setting up troop presence was too high. However, British clobbered Aghans rountinely (Google Anglo Afghan wars) and made them sign humiliating treaties.
Read up on the battle of battle of Maiwand
Yes but since when is it the USA government duty to fight wars on foreign soil just so the populace of the foreign country gets to experience American style democratic socio-economic system?
If Afghans really wanted all that stuff they would have risen up against the Taleban themselves but clearly their priorities lie elsewhere. So why does America have to put its troops in danger and spend billions of dollars just to prop up a semblance of democratic government.
Read my other message also. What you are mentioning was the policy BEFORE 9/11. Heck, US was considering doing an oil pipleline deal with Taliban before 9/11. It all changed after 9/11 when it was realized that allowing power vacuum in A-stan will create massive headache for west later.
The question for Obama is this: POWER VACUUM OR NO POWER VACUUM IN A-STAN.
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 04:40 PM
I thought everyone was Anti War, you are Pro War?
In a just cause, YES, and this is a just cause.
Read up on the battle of battle of Maiwand
One battle means little, besides mountain campaigns are always risky. Afghanistan does'nt has a glorious past I am sorry to say, but that does'nt mean it cannot have a civilized future.
One battle means little, besides mountain campaigns are always risky. Afghanistan does'nt has a glorious past I am sorry to say, but that does'nt mean it cannot have a civilized future.
It was more than one battle that drove the Brits out,it was a realization the Country could not be brought under control, the Russians,Brits,Mongols on and on.
In a just cause, YES, and this is a just cause.
How long should troops stay there? are you saying if NATO and other Countries keep the current troop levels they should stay despite what the ground commanders say?
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 05:25 PM
It was more than one battle that drove the Brits out,it was a realization the Country could not be brought under control, the Russians,Brits,Mongols on and on.
How far do you want to go back with your analogy?,
Funny how the British in 1880 under General Roberts who lead a column from Kabul to Kandahar to relieve General Burrows and the resulting battle lead to the defeat of the Afghans and the conclusion of the war.:roll:
Back then the Russians were on the side of the Afghans.
But at some stage they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 05:25 PM
How long should troops stay there? are you saying if NATO and other Countries keep the current troop levels they should stay despite what the ground commanders say?
As long as it takes.
How far do you want to go back with your analogy?,
Funny how the British in 1880 under General Roberts who lead a column from Kabul to Kandahar to relieve General Burrows and the resulting battle lead to the defeat of the Afghans and the conclusion of the war.:roll:
Back then the Russians were on the side of the Afghans.
But at some stage they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
No they wont be dragged into the modern world,its tribal its primative and thats what the population want.
As long as it takes.
Stay despite the fact the commanders say we dont have the troops? what if the President says no more troops still stay?
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 05:32 PM
No they wont be dragged into the modern world,its tribal its primative and thats what the population want.
B o l l o x kid, most of the world was once that way but was forced to move on.
Connaught Ranger
10-04-2009, 05:33 PM
Stay despite the fact the commanders say we dont have the troops? what if the President says no more troops still stay?
More than the U.S.A. is over there kid.:roll:
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Read up on the battle of battle of Maiwand
Why don't you go spend some time in Maywand?
Why don't you go spend some time in Maywand?
The Brits pulled out for a reason,they seen no matter what they did the fight would never end it was their Forward Policy they concluded was flawed.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 05:38 PM
The Brits pulled out for a reason,they seen no matter what they did the fight would never end it was their Forward Policy they concluded was flawed.
Reading some Wiki page by no means makes you an expert. Besides... you do realize there are Coalition Forces in Maywand.... right?
West Texican
10-04-2009, 05:47 PM
There will come a time when the western forces do leave. Pressure to force the Afghanis to straighten up their house should be constantly applied and routinely ratcheted up under the threat that the west will not be there forever and when the western forces leave, the Taliban or whoever, will return if they don't get their act together now. I don't see President Obama sticking with the current situation much longer. I see him pulling troops and drawing down in 2 to 3 years (next election politics) if some really major progress is not made by the Afghans soon. Military progress means nothing without social progress in Afghanistan.
Reading some Wiki page by no means makes you an expert. Besides... you do realize there are Coalition Forces in Maywand.... right?
Are you saying there are enough coalition troops in Afgan to do the job? if there are not enough troops and the coalition will not add enough troops what would you do?
LineDoggie
10-04-2009, 05:52 PM
I thought everyone was Anti War, you are Pro War?There you go thinking, I thought I heard a smoke alarm going off....
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 05:57 PM
Are you saying there are enough coalition troops in Afgan to do the job?
Is that what I'm saying?
There were 4000 additional army troops and 8000 Marines sent to A-stan not too long ago, thanks Obama. No, the more the merrier. If you've ever been to A-stan, (educated guess says no) then you know that the AOs are huge (Especially for a Canadian) and we could always use additional forces. Ask anyone who's been there in '02 and recently and they'll tell ya. Things have drastically changed.
Can we turn the country around? Probably not... but that's not our purpose. We're not there to eliminate the Taliban, can't happen. Read another one of your left wing Liberal papers. I'm sure it'll tell ya why we're there.
The ONLY thing I will back you on is your statement about how great it would be to get the local populace to inform us of IEDs, Ambush's, etc. I agee, it would be wonderful. I also understand the position locals are in. Do I agree with them withholding info? No. Would it have been nice if they told us and our fellow soldiers came back alive? Yes, but I look at it from both perspectives.
Do some more research, then tell us we need to read up on current politics
Is that what I'm saying?
There were 4000 additional army troops and 8000 Marines sent to A-stan not too long ago, thanks Obama. No, the more the merrier. If you've ever been to A-stan, (educated guess says no) then you know that the AOs are huge (Especially for a Canadian) and we could always use additional forces. Ask anyone who's been there in '02 and recently and they'll tell ya. Things have drastically changed.
Can we turn the country around? Probably not... but that's not our purpose. We're not there to eliminate the Taliban, can't happen. Read another one of your left wing Liberal papers. I'm sure it'll tell ya why we're there.
The ONLY thing I will back you on is your statement about how great it would be to get the local populace to inform us of IEDs, Ambush's, etc. I agee, it would be wonderful. I also understand the position locals are in. Do I agree with them withholding info? No. Would it have been nice if they told us and our fellow soldiers came back alive? Yes, but I look at it from both perspectives.
Do some more research, then tell us we need to read up on current politics
Were not there to eliminate the Taliban,were not there to turn the Country around,the locals are little to no help,the government is corrupt, the enemy have refuge on the other side of the border,the American government is so far unwilling to give the resources needed to do the job,the coalition forces are not adding enough troops,seems we are putting are troops in harms way with no way to win.
brainplay
10-04-2009, 06:10 PM
Interestingly, if the motive is to not allow a repeat of 9/11, the US would have to invade Saudi Arabia - almost all the hijackers were saudi citizens, they were fanatical, homicidal religious zealots - because of their saudi wahabi upbringing, they were led by a saudi - Bin Laden.. And the Saudi regime and saudi 'charities' still finance a global network of wahabi mosques, that teaches ultra-violence against the infidels. A global network of what is for all practical purposes, the recruitment stations of the Al Qaeda.
Actually no. I terms of allies who have problems with terrorist cells in their territory you provide support in the form of money, equipment, and advisors/troops if they need it.
The US would perhaps have to attack the pakistanis as well - the masterminds behind the taliban. The ISI.. Much more dangerous than the taliban - who simply want to live in the stoneage in Afghanistan. America has been deceived by 'allies' that are in fact their true enemies.
Once again, they are supposed to be our side and we are supposedly doing the same as above. If we do a 180 and wreck the place (which we don't have the manpower to do) then we'll be facing some serious political reprecussions. Then of course there's the minor issue of hitting a NUCLEAR armed country. The big N word seriously changes alot of things which is one reason we try so hard to keep these other nations from getting their hands on them.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 06:15 PM
Were not there to eliminate the Taliban,were not there to turn the Country around,the locals are little to no help,the government is corrupt, the enemy have refuge on the other side of the border,the American government is so far unwilling to give the resources needed to do the job,the coalition forces are not adding enough troops,seems we are putting are troops in harms way with no way to win.
No way to win?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. You have made no valid points as of yet. You're only tactic is to rely on one simple idea, the govn't doesn't care. There is an end in sight. I think you need to actually do some research on the matter before you try to voice an uneducated opinion. The American govn't is OBVIOUSLY giving resources to the effort, otherwise there would be no troops, equipment, money, etc in A-stan at all. Tell me how that's a gov't unwilling to contribute resource
You really just sound like an idiot. Do some research first (No, you're left wing local papers written by art students doesn't count)
No way to win?
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. You have made no valid points as of yet. You're only tactic is to rely on one simple idea, the govn't doesn't care. There is an end in sight. I think you need to actually do some research on the matter before you try to voice an uneducated opinion. The American govn't is OBVIOUSLY giving resources to the effort, otherwise there would be no troops, equipment, money, etc in A-stan at all. Tell me how that's a gov't unwilling to contribute resource
You really just sound like an idiot. Do some research first (No, you're left wing local papers written by art students doesn't count)
I guess you get facts mixed up with wishful thinking, fact is the Afgan government is corrupt, fact is there are not enough troops there,the American commander General McCrystal says the fight is slipping away he needs more troops!,fact is the troops have unreasonable rules of engagement they cant do their job with one arm tied behind their back, as it is now the troops are sitting ducks, last but not least the locals have not stepped up to the fight in the numbers needed.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 06:28 PM
I guess you get facts mixed up with wishful thinking, fact is the Afgan government is corrupt, fact is there are not enough troops there,the American commander General McCrystal says the fight is slipping away he needs more troops!,fact is the troops have unreasonable rules of engagement they cant do their job with one arm tied behind their back, as it is now the troops are sitting ducks.
Spoken like a true armchair general
kalerab
10-04-2009, 06:30 PM
But at some stage they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Maybe itīs just me but I cannot imagine how Afgan wake up at 7am, got some breakfast, suit up, start his car, goes to the work, have a coffee at McDonalds and in the end of the day come back home to the loving family knowing that he still have to pay his mortage loan on his house, car and god knows what else...
Spoken like a true armchair general
Spoken by someone who has no valid point to make!
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 06:37 PM
Spoken by someone who has no valid point to make!
Right, I've tried to explain to you my point. You clearly have one idea in your head and even though you made a discussion thread, you have no intention of listening to anyone else's opinion. Don't bother starting discussion threads if you're not going to listen to anyone else, all you want to do is argue.
California Joe
10-04-2009, 06:40 PM
I guess you get facts mixed up with wishful thinking, fact is the Afgan government is corrupt, fact is there are not enough troops there,the American commander General McCrystal says the fight is slipping away he needs more troops!,fact is the troops have unreasonable rules of engagement they cant do their job with one arm tied behind their back, as it is now the troops are sitting ducks, last but not least the locals have not stepped up to the fight in the numbers needed.
Sh*thead, the corrupt government was handpicked by us. Commanders on the ground always want more troops, it's a fact of warfare as old as war. What ROEs do you have a problem with? How long were you there to formulate this opinion? "Our" troops are sitting ducks? Really? Lastly, apparently you missed the part about "hearts and minds" while studying at West Point or watching The Green Berets on TBS, where locals that collaborate with the occupying army get their kids raped and killed or their arms cut off or their schools bombed or their actual f*cking lives completely f*cked to oblivion.
In short, you're a myopic douchebag with no real world experience and a penchant for less than perfect spelling. I sincerely hope that later tonight while you're engaging in your nightly Glenn Beck bukkake festival you accidentally slip and shoot your eye out. You complete ****wad.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 06:43 PM
That too :)
Hollis
10-04-2009, 06:44 PM
That too :)
I like it when everyone is agreeable, I can feel the love, do I hear a Halleluja? p-)
brainplay
10-04-2009, 06:52 PM
I sincerely hope that later tonight while you're engaging in your nightly Glenn Beck bukkake festival you accidentally slip and shoot your eye out. You complete ****wad.
Beck's in support of the Afghan war. This douche sounds more like an Obie/Maddow fan.
LineDoggie
10-04-2009, 06:56 PM
Beck's in support of the Afghan war. This douche sounds more like an Obie/Maddow fan.
Yup, and a perusal of His posting history shows he is a likely candidate for DAOTW redux.
JTP709
10-04-2009, 06:57 PM
@ BudW
You came here asking a question.
You got answers, yet you consistently don't event consider or listen to anybody. You keep spewing out the same newspaper headlines with no evidence or experience to back you up.
Here, you have combat veterans and military officers who have lived and worked over there for longer than you've been on this forum. Rather than argue the same headlines, listen to these guys and keep an open mind, you might learn something.
Now, I agree that the A-stan War was neglected for the past 6 years, but it is not to the point we can just cut our losses. The only fact I would like to point out that makes this war much different from Vietnam, was Vietnam was not a threat to our country. The 9-11 bombers were trained by the al-Qaeda organization based out of Afghanistan. Cutting out losses in Vietnam did not threaten our national security, allowing the Taliban to take back the country will.
Also, al-Qaeda and terrorist organizations are non-state actors, thus invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't solve our problems, as al-Qaeda was based out of A-stan. Timothy McVeigh was an American born and bread terrorist, but we aren't invading ourselves now are we?
California Joe
10-04-2009, 06:58 PM
Beck's in support of the Afghan war. This douche sounds more like an Obie/Maddow fan.
Thanks Mr. Helper. I'm figuring that Strategy Boy here is angry that he doesn't see enough movement in the area of lots more troops, kill them all, let Gawd sort them out, turn the country to glass...arena. Could just be me, but his tone doesn't particularly strike me as rational. Therefore I thought of the Flaming Mormon of Death, Glenn Beck. Sue me.
Sh*thead, the corrupt government was handpicked by us. Commanders on the ground always want more troops, it's a fact of warfare as old as war. What ROEs do you have a problem with? How long were you there to formulate this opinion? "Our" troops are sitting ducks? Really? Lastly, apparently you missed the part about "hearts and minds" while studying at West Point or watching The Green Berets on TBS, where locals that collaborate with the occupying army get their kids raped and killed or their arms cut off or their schools bombed or their actual f*cking lives completely f*cked to oblivion.
In short, you're a myopic douchebag with no real world experience and a penchant for less than perfect spelling. I sincerely hope that later tonight while you're engaging in your nightly Glenn Beck bukkake festival you accidentally slip and shoot your eye out. You complete ****wad.
Heres ROE in the marines words We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition. "We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village's first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.
JTP709
10-04-2009, 07:04 PM
Heres ROE in the marines words We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition. "We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village's first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.
Welcome to WAR. People on both sides of the line are trying to kill each other.
Because we live in a democratic country, our soldiers must work within the Rules of Engagement to protect the local civilians.
If you don't like it, leave.
As an old soldier I understood these risks and will do them again. I was never called upon to serve my country, but I'm about to sign up again. I except this as the situation, but since when is life ever easy.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 07:04 PM
Heres ROE in the marines words We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition. "We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
The Marines were cut down as they sought cover in a trench at the base of the village's first layer cake-style stone house. Much of their ammunition was gone. One Marine was bending over a second, tending his wounds, when both were killed, said Marine Cpl. Dakota Meyer, 21, of Greensburg, Ky., who retrieved their bodies.
Regardless of ROEs, you'll never be ALLOWED to decimate women/civilians. ROEs can be pretty loose once sh*t goes south.
Quoting an article is completely different than actually understanding (as in your case)
California Joe
10-04-2009, 07:07 PM
Ohhhhhhhhh so now a single clusterf*ck of an incident reported in an inflammatory manner, unless you were there, and know it's factual...should dictate foreign policy for the region? Because everyone knows that overreaction is the best policy. I saw it in the Untouchables. The Chicago way...I'm glad you're leading the DoD now. Go get 'em champ.
@ BudW
You came here asking a question.
You got answers, yet you consistently don't event consider or listen to anybody. You keep spewing out the same newspaper headlines with no evidence or experience to back you up.
Here, you have combat veterans and military officers who have lived and worked over there for longer than you've been on this forum. Rather than argue the same headlines, listen to these guys and keep an open mind, you might learn something.
Now, I agree that the A-stan War was neglected for the past 6 years, but it is not to the point we can just cut our losses. The only fact I would like to point out that makes this war much different from Vietnam, was Vietnam was not a threat to our country. The 9-11 bombers were trained by the al-Qaeda organization based out of Afghanistan. Cutting out losses in Vietnam did not threaten our national security, allowing the Taliban to take back the country will.
Also, al-Qaeda and terrorist organizations are non-state actors, thus invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't solve our problems, as al-Qaeda was based out of A-stan. Timothy McVeigh was an American born and bread terrorist, but we aren't invading ourselves now are we?
I think General McCrystal is a good source, let me try again do you think the Afgan Government is legit?, If President Obama will not give the troops what they need why stay? , do you think the locals are stepping up to join the fight in the numbers needed to win?should we expect are troops to fight under rules of engagement that are in place? many of you make the point Afgan is important but you ignore the situation the troops are in.
Ohhhhhhhhh so now a single clusterf*ck of an incident reported in an inflammatory manner, unless you were there, and know it's factual...should dictate foreign policy for the region? Because everyone knows that overreaction is the best policy. I saw it in the Untouchables. The Chicago way...I'm glad you're leading the DoD now. Go get 'em champ.
Tune out your John Wayne movie and listen to the troops on the ground the rules of engagement are costing coalition lives, the article is from a conservative site, do you think the rules of engagement in Afgan are reasonable?
JTP709
10-04-2009, 07:23 PM
I think General McCrystal is a good source, let me try again do you think the Afgan Government is legit?, If President Obama will not give the troops what they need why stay? , do you think the locals are stepping up to join the fight in the numbers needed to win?should we expect are troops to fight under rules of engagement that are in place? many of you make the point Afgan is important but you ignore the situation the troops are in.
You clearly dont understand politics. If General McChrystal said he wants more troops but doesn't really need them, then he probably wont get want he wants unless he makes it sound urgent. Now, I do agree we need to devote more troops to the fight, but you also seem to forget that Obama hasn't said he wont follow General McChrystal's plan. He is still exploring options.
I do expect to fight under the current ROE, because his is a COUTNER-INSURGENCY, thus you must work to win the hearts and minds of the population more so than destroy the enemy. Body counts are only important in your video games dude, not in this War. If you actually read General McChrystal's report you might have picked up on this.
Also, keep in mind most of your headlines and articles you're reading portray the ****ty aspect of the fight because thats what the media loves to write about. Just because you find a bunch of articles demonstrating the crappy aspects of War doesn't mean its all a **** storm. But then again I think the only thing that will make you happy is if all of our soldiers had a God Mode with unlimited ammo fighting from lazy boy chairs. Sorry, but War is Hell and we gotta fight in it. Fact of Life, Fact of War, it isn't pretty.
Most of the people who have replied to this thread are soldiers, the same people who have fought in the conditions you mention, and yet you still ignore them.
California Joe
10-04-2009, 07:24 PM
I think General McCrystal is a good source, let me try again do you think the Afgan Government is legit?, If President Obama will not give the troops what they need why stay? , do you think the locals are stepping up to join the fight in the numbers needed to win?should we expect are troops to fight under rules of engagement that are in place? many of you make the point Afgan is important but you ignore the situation the troops are in.
Again...Legit or not, it's the one we installed. Now we have to live with it. Karzai and everyone else there is largely corrupt and identifies more with their tribes than the "government" it's cultural. Locals "stepping up"? Your grasp of the culture and situation is so beyond retarded that I don't even know where to start. What would constitute legitimate ROEs on your watch? Seriously, explain your methodology.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 07:38 PM
Tune out your John Wayne movie and listen to the troops on the ground the rules of engagement are costing coalition lives, the article is from a conservative site, do you think the rules of engagement in Afgan are reasonable?
Holy f#ck man.... I'm tellin' ya, the ROEs are pretty good. No, we never were allowed to go and blast anyone we wanted. Here's the reality though... the reason we can't is so we don't piss off everyone there. The ROEs loosen up drastically once there's contact. I'm telling you this. I AM TELLING YOU. There is no possible way you can say that I am not looking at it from a soldier's perspective
Ngati Tumatauenga
10-04-2009, 07:42 PM
Tune out your John Wayne movie and listen to the troops on the ground the rules of engagement are costing coalition lives, the article is from a conservative site, do you think the rules of engagement in Afgan are reasonable?
The fact that you feel the need to ask that question illustrates how ignorant you are.
How about you lay out exactly how the ROE's should be changed?
You have a bunch of guys from several different militaries telling you you're wrong but aren't paying any attention.
Which is ironic considering you started this thread to ask questions that you obviously don't have the experience to answer.
No wonder you have two infractions on you presently.
JTP709
10-04-2009, 07:49 PM
@BudW
You came here seeking answers, but you didn't get the answer you wanted and you let your bias and closed-mindedness prevent you from learning something. All of us have read the headlines, we don't need you spitting them back at us in your vain attempt to convince everyone here that the war these men have fought is lost.
Jĩĩso
10-04-2009, 07:51 PM
B o l l o x kid, most of the world was once that way but was forced to move on.
Does not look like it.
'No ***, no food' law passed in Afghanistan
http://www.zillr.com/news/story/No-***-no-food-law-passed-in-afghanistan
Brits never took over Afghanistan. They simply made the Afghan king submit to British mandated foreign policy, i.e. keep the Russian Tsar away. There's nothing to conquer in Afghanistan, what will you conquer? hilltops? Even Babur mentions that moving from Afghanistan to India meant his days of hardship were over.
It was more than one battle that drove the Brits out,it was a realization the Country could not be brought under control, the Russians,Brits,Mongols on and on.
EStrike101
10-04-2009, 07:55 PM
@BudW
seriously, how old are you?
LineDoggie
10-04-2009, 08:01 PM
@BudW
seriously, how old are you? Screw the age, the question is where and when did he serve to suddenly become an expert on ROE, and who is he to tell Real Soldiers whats going on.
JTP709
10-04-2009, 08:05 PM
Screw the age, the question is where and when did he serve to suddenly become an expert on ROE, and who is he to tell Real Soldiers whats going on.
He is the expert on "world-news headlines" and I'm sure he Tivos "The Daily Show"
BloodyTalon
10-04-2009, 08:22 PM
Tune out your John Wayne movie and listen to the troops on the ground the rules of engagement are costing coalition lives, the article is from a conservative site, do you think the rules of engagement in Afgan are reasonable?
I'm just curious; how comfy is an armchair general's armchair exactly? Is it just as comfortable as a regular armchair or does the delusion of knowledge and experience somehow elevate its comfort?
We don't have those ROEs for ****s and giggles; the Taliban are embedded in villages that are small but as densely packed as a shantytown, which means we don't always have the luxury of indirect fire and CAS and have to resort to engaging them directly. Does that suck? You bet it does, but the "kill em all, let God sort em out" you advocate is only going to turn Afghans who at worst were only concerned with their tribe or town into enemies of the coalition soldiers and as a result supporters of the Taliban.
Now how about listening to the people here that have military experience and have served in Afghanistan before spouting your bull?
I'm just curious; how comfy is an armchair general's armchair exactly? Is it just as comfortable as a regular armchair or does the delusion of knowledge and experience somehow elevate its comfort?
We don't have those ROEs for ****s and giggles; the Taliban are embedded in villages that are small but as densely packed as a shantytown, which means we don't always have the luxury of indirect fire and CAS and have to resort to engaging them directly. Does that suck? You bet it does, but the "kill em all, let God sort em out" you advocate is only going to turn Afghans who at worst were only concerned with their tribe or town into enemies of the coalition soldiers and as a result supporters of the Taliban.
Now how about listening to the people here that have military experience and have served in Afghanistan before spouting your bull?
I quoted Marines in Afgan thats good enough for me, I repeated what General McCrystal says he needs more troops, do you have some knowledge over and above the General>? not one of you will say one way or the other if we should stay if President Obama says no to more troops, I havent seen any comment why the locals havent stepped up to the plate to fight the bad guys, if the locals stay on the sidelines should we stay in Afgan? Should we be fighting for a corrupt government? try answering some of these questions as opposed to talking trash, I respect the other side of the argument I just dont see given what the situation is its worth the blood of our troops at this point.
LineDoggie
10-04-2009, 08:53 PM
Have YOU ever stepped up to the plate you say the Local Afghans wont step up to?
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 08:55 PM
I quoted Marines in Afgan thats good enough for me, I repeated what General McCrystal says he needs more troops, do you have some knowledge over and above the General>? not one of you will say one way or the other if we should stay if President Obama says no to more troops, I havent seen any comment why the locals havent stepped up to the plate to fight the bad guys, if the locals stay on the sidelines should we stay in Afgan? Should we be fighting for a corrupt government? try answering some of these questions as opposed to talking trash, I respect the other side of the argument I just dont see given what the situation is its worth the blood of our troops at this point.
Holy sh*t, I thought you were only 2/3 retarded... pardon me...
Yes, we should stay. Obama hasn't said "No" to more troops, so it's really a pointless question. As for the locals doing nothing... in Pakistan, the Military is supporting local militia's to fight Taliban forces (I know you're A-stan specific... but trust me, this impacts A-stan) and the locals ARE fighting Tehrik Taliban Pakistan. You want the reality? It's been reasonably effective too.
There are your answers. Maybe now you will just stop posting
Lasse
10-04-2009, 08:55 PM
Backing out of a war just because it's hard and unpopular would be the most selfish thing to do. What ISAF needs to do, is to finish the job, no matter how long it takes, what the cost is and how many lives are lost.
An half-assed job won't do anything good to the Afghan population, because when Taliban or whoever comes back, they will hit hard on anyone they know worked with ISAF.
What needs to be done, is to train enough ANA\ANP etc. troops so that less forign troops are needed on the ground.
Hollis
10-04-2009, 09:12 PM
There are your answers. Maybe now you will just stop posting
Seems like a prudent thing to do, if I was BudW.
What needs to be done, is to train enough ANA\ANP etc. troops so that less forign troops are needed on the ground.
That is exactly the issue, this is a Afghanistan fight right now, we are helping.
The sooner A-Stan has enough people to handle their own security, we be gone......... just like Iraq. Funny part is certain defeatist people are singing the same song, except it is not Iraq, it is A-stan.
Whistle by the grave yard, the General in charge says not enough troops the situation is getting worse and the war is in doubt with out more troops and a new strategy, General Shinseki said the same thing I guess you all think President Obama is on the right course and will do the right thing,before this all is said and done General McCrystal will more than likely resign or get sacked the Afgan war is Vietnam all over you just cant see it yet.
little icebear
10-04-2009, 09:15 PM
I donīt think "we" should have started this in the first place but once youīre in, youīre in and bound to finish the job.
Unless you want to jeopardize the alliances credibility to a point where you can ask yourself if it is still to be taken seriously.
I donīt like to imagine what kind of signal it would send to the whole world if the west gave up on Afghanistan.
There is no chance one could sugarcoate this defeat. The geopolitical consequeces would be grave.
Hollis
10-04-2009, 09:17 PM
Whistle by the grave yard, the General in charge says not enough troops the situation is getting worse and the war is in doubt with out more troops and a new strategy, General Shinseki said the same thing I guess you all think President Obama is on the right course and will do the right thing,before this all is said and done General McCrystal will more than likely resign or get sacked the Afgan war is Vietnam all over you just cant see it yet.
You are a idiot........... take a holiday.
Seems like a prudent thing to do, if I was BudW.
That is exactly the issue, this is a Afghanistan fight right now, we are helping.
The sooner A-Stan has enough people to handle their own security, we be gone......... just like Iraq. Funny part is certain defeatist people are singing the same song, except it is not Iraq, it is A-stan.
8 years and counting longer than ww2,if the locals havent stepped up by now they arent going to.
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 09:24 PM
8 years and counting longer than ww2,if the locals havent stepped up by now they arent going to.
You're seriously going to compare this to WW2? Seriously? Time to get your head out of your @ss and take in some fresh air (maybe get with reality too)
So, you have decided locals aren't going to step up? Really, because it's been 8 years? How long have Taliban been operating in Pakistan? Safe to say the same amount of time as A-stan? Well, locals are stepping up there... I guess you have some sort of crystal ball we all don't know about.
Vietnam? Well... I know we could point out some huge differences (and no, not just location and skin colour). The only similarity between this and Vietnam is the caliber of rounds fired.
Please, enlighten us all. How is this going to all end? How many lives will be lost for the Imperialistic war for oil? Please, tell us!
BloodyTalon
10-04-2009, 09:25 PM
I quoted Marines in Afgan thats good enough for me, I repeated what General McCrystal says he needs more troops, do you have some knowledge over and above the General>? not one of you will say one way or the other if we should stay if President Obama says no to more troops, I havent seen any comment why the locals havent stepped up to the plate to fight the bad guys, if the locals stay on the sidelines should we stay in Afgan? Should we be fighting for a corrupt government? try answering some of these questions as opposed to talking trash, I respect the other side of the argument I just dont see given what the situation is its worth the blood of our troops at this point.
So reading a sensational news article and taking General McCrystal's troop request out of context suddenly makes you the subject matter expert in Afghanistan as opposed to all the BTDTs here who have served in the country? Fascinating :roll:
Again, our current ROEs exist for a good reason. Here is what the average Afghan villages look like:
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/7089/a0118330419.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/i/a0118330419.jpg/)
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4953/afghanvillageneargardez.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/afghanvillageneargardez.jpg/)
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/6004/dscn0002hs.jpg (http://img200.imageshack.us/i/dscn0002hs.jpg/)
Notice a pattern? They are tightly packed together and very, very old. Many date back from the Kushan Empire and even the Hellenic Era. If you drop a JDAM or a 155mm shell on a building there, take a good guess whats going to happen to the neighboring buildings and the people inside them? you get multiple buildings obliterated, several civilian deaths that could have been avoided, and dozens of pissed off villagers who are now going to join the Taliban to get back at the ISAF for destroying an entire section of their village just to get to a few insurgents.
Which brings us to the "not standing up for themselves" myth; its not that the Afghanis don't want to support the coalition, its that they are afraid to do so. The Taliban are usually either embedded in their villages or within the vicinity, and they're more than willing to torture and kill anyone that dares to assist the ISAF. Since we currently lack the troops needed to provide for these villagers' safety, they are hesitant to help us because they know doing so runs the risk of the Taliban punishing them or their family.
Which now brings us to General McCrystal's request; he doesn't want extra troops so he can change the ROEs and unleash complete hell on the Afghanis who aren't supportive of the ISAF like he's a straight, better-dressed version of Lord Humungus. He wants the extra troops so he can provide a buffer zone between the Taliban and Afghani villages. By having enough soldiers to make more frequent patrols into these villages, we can drive the Taliban out more effectively and keep them out, thus allowing Afghanistna as a whole to build up and become stable and independent.
Universal_Soldier
10-04-2009, 09:26 PM
I quoted Marines in Afgan thats good enough for me, I repeated what General McCrystal says he needs more troops, do you have some knowledge over and above the General>? not one of you will say one way or the other if we should stay if President Obama says no to more troops, I havent seen any comment why the locals havent stepped up to the plate to fight the bad guys, if the locals stay on the sidelines should we stay in Afgan? Should we be fighting for a corrupt government? try answering some of these questions as opposed to talking trash, I respect the other side of the argument I just dont see given what the situation is its worth the blood of our troops at this point.
First off, ISAF isn't in A'stan to fight for a corrupt government. I'm surprised that you seem oblivious of the reason for which they are there. I don't know of any war where the general in command isn't calling for more troops. So it's upto the CIC to make the decision on troop levels on a the strategic basis (hopefully with the help of senior miitary advisers). Try to collect your thoughts a bit more cos you are all over the place with your "argument".
SE7ENSIX
10-04-2009, 09:28 PM
Also, the reason there isn't more troops to deploy is because cowards like you won't join the fight... you'll just b*tch about it and give your un-educated opinion. (@BudW)
PeterG
10-05-2009, 12:42 AM
Which now brings us to General McCrystal's request; he doesn't want extra troops so he can change the ROEs and unleash complete hell on the Afghanis who aren't supportive of the ISAF like he's a straight, better-dressed version of Lord Humungus. He wants the extra troops so he can provide a buffer zone between the Taliban and Afghani villages. By having enough soldiers to make more frequent patrols into these villages, we can drive the Taliban out more effectively and keep them out, thus allowing Afghanistna as a whole to build up and become stable and independent.
I read yesterday that there are 42 000 villages in Afghanistan. Can we even grasp what it will take to secure and stabilize this country..? We're talking a Vietnam size commitment here. More than that.
Is there political will? Can the US actually afford such a war, financially? Can the US military sustain operations on that scale for many years to come..?
Soldat_Américain
10-05-2009, 12:55 AM
I read yesterday that there are 42 000 villages in Afghanistan. Can we even grasp what it will take to secure and stabilize this country..? We're talking a Vietnam size commitment here. More than that.
Is there political will? Can the US actually afford such a war, financially? Can the US military sustain operations on that scale for many years to come..?
If every country currently there increases their forces in country we could do it, it cannot just be the US, yes it is a given, and I understand that the EU members nations have commitments elsewhere. But the United we stand phrase must be used here, because together we will succeed, if nations start pulling out of ISAF and US Forces replacing them the burden will be extremely tough to bear. Not necessarily by our armed forces but but to politically justify the continuance.
I would also suggest that we look to Muslim nations such as Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia to commit troops to ISAF.
This war will be slow and the victories will seem small, but it does require resolve and patience to fight, because this an august cause.
khalifah
10-05-2009, 01:03 AM
I would also suggest that we look to Muslim nations such as Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia to commit troops to ISAF.
.
well said,
this sounds like a good idea, though i wonder why no such Muslim nations take part in ISAF.?
thoughts anyone?
Repeating what some leftist journalists are whining about "impending failure" in A-Stan does'nt means you are automatically right. No one, especially Afghans, wants the Taliban back in A-Stan, however a political deal might be in the works because that could split the Taliban. This is a classic approach to tackle armed insurgencies world over, you show a really big stick and a really sweet carrot, it causes a split among the warring guerillas, some of them want airconditioned offices and Mercedez Benzes and fancy salaries (labeled as moderates), some want to stay in the jungle and eat boiled potatoes (labeled as extremists). However, the split mostly happens. Taliban is no different, simply bribe their warlord bosses in Peshawar and Quetta with billion dollar bribes, trips to Brussels and DC, Mercedez Benzes, meetings with top world bigwigs and most of them would come drooling right away. Once used to the perks of offices and nicely fattened up, most would'nt want to go back to fighting any time soon.
Whistle by the grave yard, the General in charge says not enough troops the situation is getting worse and the war is in doubt with out more troops and a new strategy, General Shinseki said the same thing I guess you all think President Obama is on the right course and will do the right thing,before this all is said and done General McCrystal will more than likely resign or get sacked the Afgan war is Vietnam all over you just cant see it yet.
JTP709
10-05-2009, 01:26 AM
@BudW
You keep repeating the exact same four or five statements in every single post. That is very annoying, as it is obvious you either A) aren't reading the replies, or B) are too closed minded to realize that some of these WAR VETERANS with years of military EXPERIENCE are on to something.
I'm going to go with option B, because you continue to quote these guys, regurgitate the same spiel you've been spitting out all day long, and won't even acknowledge that these guys know a thing or two.
You came here asking a question, and so far all you've down is disrespect everybody here who actually has a valid argument.
West Texican
10-05-2009, 02:47 AM
BudW ......... I don't agree with you but hat's off for running the thread in a circle. Great use of disinformation. Are you a journalist?
Connaught Ranger
10-05-2009, 03:05 AM
Maybe itīs just me but I cannot imagine how Afgan wake up at 7am, got some breakfast, suit up, start his car, goes to the work, have a coffee at McDonalds and in the end of the day come back home to the loving family knowing that he still have to pay his mortage loan on his house, car and god knows what else...
That day will come in time, first the weapons & terrorists have to be removed from the equation, the simple for the want of a better word Afghan people have always been under the gun, either carried by some local warlord, or by terrorists, and now they see the foreign soldiers with weapons, that have come to get rid of the terrorists. But for most of their history the common person has had no say in the way the country is ran, and Yes, there is corruption, but, that is in all society's, and lets not forget the drugs business.
Connaught Ranger.
PeterG
10-05-2009, 03:40 AM
If every country currently there increases their forces in country we could do it, it cannot just be the US, yes it is a given, and I understand that the EU members nations have commitments elsewhere. But the United we stand phrase must be used here, because together we will succeed, if nations start pulling out of ISAF and US Forces replacing them the burden will be extremely tough to bear. Not necessarily by our armed forces but but to politically justify the continuance.
I would also suggest that we look to Muslim nations such as Egypt, Malaysia, and Indonesia to commit troops to ISAF.
This war will be slow and the victories will seem small, but it does require resolve and patience to fight, because this an august cause.
Actually, the real enemy is the Al Qaeda, and the taliban was merely attacked for sheltering them. Nobody is fighting the taliban because they are afraid the taliban will fly airliners into more buildings in the US - they won't and never have.
The AQ though, can and will operate from wherever. The international community can sacrifice 10 trillion dollars and the lives of 100 000 men in Afghanistan over the next two decades - and there will still be a new terrorist attack in the US, carried out by young saudi men who have never set foot in Afghanistan, and came to the US completely legit, on student VISAs.
This isn't about Afghanistan - it never was, it was about fighting the AQ. The islamists have succeeded though, in drawing in the US in a completely pointless war on the ground in Afghanistan. A war that will only weaken the west - and make the islamists stronger every day.
Meanwhile, new AQ terrorists prepare and train in dozens of other countries worldwide. The next batch of terrorists who will strike the next big blow to the US or another western power, is probably in place already. Studying at an american university? Running a mobile phone shop in Madrid? Praying at a mosque in finsbury, London right now?
wicked_hind
10-05-2009, 07:09 AM
I can almost feel an embolism about to pop in my brain after reading all of BudW's posts- like a damn broken record.
Difool
10-05-2009, 10:08 AM
What population? The Taliban? I'm sure the people who no longer hve to suffeer under the Taliban rule appreciate the US presence....their kids can finaly go to schoolHave you seen a womens face since they are freed from the Taleban?
Time to get out? Yesterday!
Hollis
10-05-2009, 10:09 AM
Repeating what some leftist journalists are whining about "impending failure" in A-Stan does'nt means you are automatically right.
I liked it better during the conflict in Iraq when A-Stan was the "was the forgotten war" to these willy nilly types. I guess with Iraq not working out as a failure in their point of view so now they have to focus on A-Stan. Their mantra, "Who needs facts when we can fill the air with massive amounts of BS."
SE7ENSIX
10-05-2009, 10:11 AM
Have you seen a womens face since they are freed from the Taleban?
Time to get out? Yesterday!
I have. As a matter of fact, during my tour I did see woman's faces... in Panjwayi non the less. You point is.....?
mrxyz
10-05-2009, 10:17 AM
I have. As a matter of fact, during my tour I did see woman's faces... in Panjwayi non the less. You point is.....?
What about the legalized wife rape, and women needing a "proper reason" to leave their houses? Or have those laws been repealed since spring?
SE7ENSIX
10-05-2009, 10:20 AM
What about the legalized wife rape, and women needing a "proper reason" to leave their houses? Or have those laws been repealed since spring?
Well, all the more reason to be there and kill Taliban. Or should we just leave and let them continue to run the country this way? Is us leaving going to make the Taliban change these laws?
Sounds like you're on my side :)
Difool
10-05-2009, 10:25 AM
I have. As a matter of fact, during my tour I did see woman's faces... in Panjwayi non the less. You point is.....?
Not much has become better for the people. Some are even worse.
Even worse: the cannot be stabilized on a somewhat democratic or humanitarian level.
By far the most women still wear Gurkas. Crime is very high as is the drug production. The president rules Kabul but not the country. Fighting still goes on. The Taleban grow stronger from year to year. Even Pakistan is highly endangered now.
JTP709
10-05-2009, 10:32 AM
Not much has become better for the people. Some are even worse.
Even worse: the cannot be stabilized on a somewhat democratic or humanitarian level.
I would say many of them are happy they aren't publicly executed for having an opinion, sending their children to school, or occasionally showing their face in public.
Based upon what my comrades who served in Afghanistan since 2001 and those who are currently there have told me, the local population they interact with appreciate their newfound freedoms. While Afghanistan isn't a carbon copy of a Western nation, they have a lot more freedom than they had before and many are beginning to like it.
JTP709
10-05-2009, 10:46 AM
Actually, the real enemy is the Al Qaeda, and the taliban was merely attacked for sheltering them. Nobody is fighting the taliban because they are afraid the taliban will fly airliners into more buildings in the US - they won't and never have.
The AQ though, can and will operate from wherever. The international community can sacrifice 10 trillion dollars and the lives of 100 000 men in Afghanistan over the next two decades - and there will still be a new terrorist attack in the US, carried out by young saudi men who have never set foot in Afghanistan, and came to the US completely legit, on student VISAs.
This isn't about Afghanistan - it never was, it was about fighting the AQ. The islamists have succeeded though, in drawing in the US in a completely pointless war on the ground in Afghanistan. A war that will only weaken the west - and make the islamists stronger every day.
Meanwhile, new AQ terrorists prepare and train in dozens of other countries worldwide. The next batch of terrorists who will strike the next big blow to the US or another western power, is probably in place already. Studying at an american university? Running a mobile phone shop in Madrid? Praying at a mosque in finsbury, London right now?
al-Qaeda is still in Afghanistan (http://www.military.com/news/article/8-us-troops-die-in-heavy-afghan-combat.html)
And yes, you are absolutely right that al-Qaeda is training and operating in other countries. However, most of these countries are working with the US in tracking down the terror cells, limiting their ability to operate, and cutting off their funding. Just because AQ is in Spain doesn't mean we should invade them.
Before we went to invade A-stan we demanded that the Taliban hand over AQ. They didn't, so the US went to the UN Security Council and asked permission to topple the Taliban in search of AQ. The UN agreed.
The US is also operating in the Philippines, where AQ and other terrorist organizations train and operate from, and are working with North American and EU partners to prevent, deter, and destroy terrorists cells and capabilities. The fight isn't only in A-stan.
A-stan is not a pointless war, as leaving will only give AQ their old home back from which to attack the US and our allies. A-stan was where the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated from. So much is obvious.
mrxyz
10-05-2009, 10:49 AM
Well, all the more reason to be there and kill Taliban. Or should we just leave and let them continue to run the country this way? Is us leaving going to make the Taliban change these laws?
Sounds like you're on my side :)
I honestly don't know if those laws are still in force, but they were signed by Hamid Karzai, and the afghani government. The point being that the current government is also completely reprehensible, but accepted.
JTP709
10-05-2009, 10:59 AM
I honestly don't know if those laws are still in force, but they were signed by Hamid Karzai, and the afghani government. The point being that the current government is also completely reprehensible, but accepted.
Keep in mind the context of the situation. A-stan is a country deeply embedded in Muslim culture dead center of the Middle East. The fact that he was democratically elected was a momentous task in such a place and situation. This is a country that has known nothing but monarchy and Taliban rule their entire lives, and know little of freedom and civil liberties. They are learning, however, but it will take time.
Some of Karzai's actions may seem despicable to the West, but to his constituents and the population its just another day in their world, and vice versa. Inducing our values into their culture isn't a shake and bake recipe, but it isn't impossible either. My guess is that Americans, or just Western culture in general, has become so fixated on instant results (fast food, streaming Netflix movies, broadband internet) that nobody wants to stomach a long War that is necessary to bring stability to the country. Just because A-stan isn't waiving peace flags or singing patriotic songs and learning to coexist doesn't mean its impossible. Fighting terrorism is fighting ideology, not force on force, body counts, troop levels. If we are going to defeat AQ we have to learn how to counter their ideology, and that is going to be a lesson we will learn in A-stan.
SE7ENSIX
10-05-2009, 12:22 PM
I honestly don't know if those laws are still in force, but they were signed by Hamid Karzai, and the afghani government. The point being that the current government is also completely reprehensible, but accepted.
I'm not going to say I support Karzai as President, I'll admit he comes off as corrupt in more ways than one. However, us leaving the country isn't going to make more of a difference in helping the people and stopping the oppression than if we stay.
Worst case scenerio: We will never change Afghanistan, and no matter what, the Taliban will have a foothold and continue to oppress the locals despite our best efforts. If all we can do is kill Taliban, well... that to me seems worth the stay. Punish those whom deserve punishment. If someone beheaded my family and beat my wife, I'd want them to be hunted and killed with small arms fire, arty and fast air
@ whomever may ask something like "at what cost"
Every Infanteer joins the army with one purpose. To go overseas and decimate enemy forces will a large variety of weapons, knowing full well the risks (if it was 100% safe, it wouldn't be as appealing to be honest)
All in all, although we may not agree... I like reading your guys' replies, especially after reading BudW's garbage
TehSuig
10-05-2009, 02:31 PM
Well, all the more reason to be there and kill Taliban. Or should we just leave and let them continue to run the country this way? Is us leaving going to make the Taliban change these laws?
But who are we to try and change their way of life? If they really wanted change they'd do it themselves the same way the Taliban rose to power to overthrow the other warlords.
Everyone we kill there is NOT Taliban. That's just what we brand them. In reality, most are young Pashtun men fighting against the foreign army that's occupying their country. If you kill one of them, their brothers have to avenge their deaths in accordance with Pashtun code. It's a never ending cycle.
And before you flame me, I spent 15 months in Afghanistan as an Infantryman, ie. not a POG. I've been there and know how it is.
Connaught Ranger
10-05-2009, 02:58 PM
Not much has become better for the people. Some are even worse.
Even worse: the cannot be stabilized on a somewhat democratic or humanitarian level.
By far the most women still wear Gurkas. Crime is very high as is the drug production. The president rules Kabul but not the country. Fighting still goes on. The Taleban grow stronger from year to year. Even Pakistan is highly endangered now.
Gurk(h)as are a race of people from Nepal. p-)
Pakistan endangered :roll: Pure Bull**** and you know it.
Connaught Ranger
10-05-2009, 03:00 PM
But who are we to try and change their way of life? If they really wanted change they'd do it themselves the same way the Taliban rose to power to overthrow the other warlords.
Everyone we kill there is NOT Taliban. That's just what we brand them. In reality, most are young Pashtun men fighting against the foreign army that's occupying their country. If you kill one of them, they're brothers have to avenge their deaths in accordance with Pashtun code. It's a never ending cycle.
And before you flame me, I spent 15 months in Afghanistan as an Infantryman, ie. not a POG. I've been there and know how it is.
The Taliban never succeeded in totally subduing the country either.:roll:
Kill them quicker than they can be born, sure to win. woot
SE7ENSIX
10-05-2009, 03:09 PM
But who are we to try and change their way of life? If they really wanted change they'd do it themselves the same way the Taliban rose to power to overthrow the other warlords.
Everyone we kill there is NOT Taliban. That's just what we brand them. In reality, most are young Pashtun men fighting against the foreign army that's occupying their country. If you kill one of them, they're brothers have to avenge their deaths in accordance with Pashtun code. It's a never ending cycle.
And before you flame me, I spent 15 months in Afghanistan as an Infantryman, ie. not a POG. I've been there and know how it is.
Ok, first off, I don't even know what 'flame me' means... so if it happens, it's unintentional.
Second, regardless of who's fighting you (as you should be able to attest to) you kill them. I don't care if the guy firing at me is avenging the death of his brother who was firing at me 2 months ago, he dies just the same. They know if they fight us, we fight back. It's no secret. That excuse holds no water.
Lastly, as a civilized nation, we can't sit by and allow terrorist (yes, Taliban are terrorists) to 'terrorize' the local populace (which they are in fact doing) as has been stated by others opposed to my opinion. Bad men need to be punished. Plain and simple. They oppress women, beat them and prevent them and children from obtaining education, we stop them. I don't care who you are, but the things they do to the Afghan public is NOT ok. We step up to help them, and of course the public has to bitch about it. God knows they need to bitch about something... why not do a disservice to the work we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and a disservice to those who have fallen.
Now, I'm well aware that someone could easily throw "who's to say they're the bad ones, not the Foreign Militaries invading". Fair enough, I'll address it in advance. We are not there to invade, not there to unnecessarily hurt or kill. We fight those who have already caused harm to others or us. Also, we are the good guys 'cause we're more powerful and we say so. That's reality in every way of life.
You served as an Infantryman, awesome. So did I, a Battlegroup tour.
bro, Taliban are just field workers, their orders come from across the border. They are in effect simply agents of a foreign power. AQ was their previous tenant, how are you so sure that next tenant will be benign? Trust me, developing textile industry in A-Stan is not a priority agenda item in Taliban meetings.
Actually, the real enemy is the Al Qaeda, and the taliban was merely attacked for sheltering them. Nobody is fighting the taliban because they are afraid the taliban will fly airliners into more buildings in the US - they won't and never have.
The AQ though, can and will operate from wherever. The international community can sacrifice 10 trillion dollars and the lives of 100 000 men in Afghanistan over the next two decades - and there will still be a new terrorist attack in the US, carried out by young saudi men who have never set foot in Afghanistan, and came to the US completely legit, on student VISAs.
This isn't about Afghanistan - it never was, it was about fighting the AQ. The islamists have succeeded though, in drawing in the US in a completely pointless war on the ground in Afghanistan. A war that will only weaken the west - and make the islamists stronger every day.
Meanwhile, new AQ terrorists prepare and train in dozens of other countries worldwide. The next batch of terrorists who will strike the next big blow to the US or another western power, is probably in place already. Studying at an american university? Running a mobile phone shop in Madrid? Praying at a mosque in finsbury, London right now?
TehSuig
10-05-2009, 03:41 PM
Second, regardless of who's fighting you (as you should be able to attest to) you kill them. I don't care if the guy firing at me is avenging the death of his brother who was firing at me 2 months ago, he dies just the same. They know if they fight us, we fight back.
Lastly, as a civilized nation, we can't sit by and allow terrorist (yes, Taliban are terrorists) to 'terrorize' the local populace (which they are in fact doing) as has been stated by others opposed to my opinion. Bad men need to be punished. Plain and simple. They oppress women, beat them and prevent them and children from obtaining education, we stop them. I don't care who you are, but the things they do to the Afghan public is NOT ok. We step up to help them, and of course the public has to bitch about it. God knows they need to bitch about something... why not do a disservice to the work we are trying to accomplish in Afghanistan, and a disservice to those who have fallen.
Now, I'm well aware that someone could easily throw "who's to say they're the bad ones, not the Foreign Militaries invading". Fair enough, I'll address it in advance. We are not there to invade, not there to unnecessarily hurt or kill. We fight those who have already caused harm to others or us. Also, we are the good guys 'cause we're more powerful and we say so. That's reality in every way of life.
Oh, I agree with your first point. It doesn't matter who they are, they going to get a bullet if they shoot at me. However, my point was that for the most part we are not fighting the Taliban anymore. We are fighting tribes who will continue to fight us as long as we are putting troops in their territory and disrupting their way of life.
Hmm, foreign power placing a standing army in my country and trying to change my laws, ruin my source of income, and enforce their will over me. What do I do? I fight back. Am I describing the current war in Afghanistan or the American Revolution? I'm not a Taliban supporter or anything, but I understand why they fight us and why they won't quit until we leave.
I disagree with you that powerful nations need to intervene in the affairs of smaller nations. Like I said before, who are we to say that our way of life is better than their's? It's their cockamammy religion that gives them to power to enforce total control over the population and it's not our place to tell them they're wrong.
Probably shouldn't use this analogy but whatever...
Also, we are the good guys 'cause we're more powerful and we say so.
So Germany was the good guy when it invaded Poland?
kalerab
10-05-2009, 04:02 PM
Keep in mind the context of the situation. A-stan is a country deeply embedded in Muslim culture dead center of the Middle East. The fact that he was democratically elected was a momentous task in such a place and situation. This is a country that has known nothing but monarchy and Taliban rule their entire lives, and know little of freedom and civil liberties. They are learning, however, but it will take time.
Some of Karzai's actions may seem despicable to the West, but to his constituents and the population its just another day in their world, and vice versa. Inducing our values into their culture isn't a shake and bake recipe, but it isn't impossible either. My guess is that Americans, or just Western culture in general, has become so fixated on instant results (fast food, streaming Netflix movies, broadband internet) that nobody wants to stomach a long War that is necessary to bring stability to the country. Just because A-stan isn't waiving peace flags or singing patriotic songs and learning to coexist doesn't mean its impossible. Fighting terrorism is fighting ideology, not force on force, body counts, troop levels. If we are going to defeat AQ we have to learn how to counter their ideology, and that is going to be a lesson we will learn in A-stan.
Sorry, but Karzai beeing democraticly elected? He manipulated the elections in his favour, in some regions more than 100 percent of people voted for him.
And youīre right about fighting ideology, this is guerilla war, not conventional - sending more troops to do the job wonīt solve much. At least it didnīt help past 8 years, why should it help now? There are few main points - first opium. Thatīs Taliban treasure box and ISAF seems to do nothing about it, opium production in Afganistan is highest in the whole world and still raising - and from the money for opium Taliban can buy toys like Ak-47 or RPG-7 which are killing coalition soldiers. Second - Pakistan. Pakistani goverment is completely useless when it comes to effectivly fight the Taliban in norhten mountains and ISAF donīt want to risk any conflict with them so weīre basicly leaving huge territory ,which is like a paradise for guerilla warfare, to Taliban for free. Third - Taliban influece in populated areas. Taliban may not be conventional army which creates a front line, but they have a ****load of influence in villages/towns in western and southern Afganistan. And than from those same villages they are recruiting fighters, hiding their weapons or making a raids. All what ISAF do is that they start the opperation, fight the Talibs, supress them and after the battle is over they leave and let the area fall under Taliban control once again. When you look onto the official operations of ISAF there is only small percent which ended by ISAF failure, yet we are where we are. That calls for new strategy in this matter. Fourth - corrupted officials. Begging by frauded elections by Karzai and continuing by corruption in state sectors (ANA, police, goverment employees) this is may be the biggest problem. Thanks to some officials which just want to make money nice-and-easy classified informations are beeing gathered by Taliban, policemans are bunch of clowns which for the 10 USD donīt see a caravan of trucks loaded with ammo and weapons heading to Taliban mountains and so on. ISAF is trying to win hearths and mins (unsucsefully though) but what gives if the Taliban can easily buy the support. And there are dozens and dozens of other problems when your goal is to transform 13th century country with muslim inquisition as itīs official ideology to something like Japan or I donīt know what and it is going to take a decades and much, much more casulties to accomplish it and maybe even that may not be enought. Maybe the ISAF should write a list of priorities and think what is more important - fighting terrorists or win hearts and minds of people? If the first one, do what Soviets did - no one can say that they werenīt succesfull in that matter.
PS: Iīm not trying to be a smartass, Iīm just giving my based opinion on this matter so try to keep that in mind.
SE7ENSIX
10-05-2009, 05:25 PM
Oh, I agree with your first point. It doesn't matter who they are, they going to get a bullet if they shoot at me. However, my point was that for the most part we are not fighting the Taliban anymore. We are fighting tribes who will continue to fight us as long as we are putting troops in their territory and disrupting their way of life.
Hmm, foreign power placing a standing army in my country and trying to change my laws, ruin my source of income, and enforce their will over me. What do I do? I fight back. Am I describing the current war in Afghanistan or the American Revolution? I'm not a Taliban supporter or anything, but I understand why they fight us and why they won't quit until we leave.
I disagree with you that powerful nations need to intervene in the affairs of smaller nations. Like I said before, who are we to say that our way of life is better than their's? It's their cockamammy religion that gives them to power to enforce total control over the population and it's not our place to tell them they're wrong.
Probably shouldn't use this analogy but whatever...
So Germany was the good guy when it invaded Poland?
Well, I don't think we're in so much of a disagreement as a whole, more so on the smaller points. I do believe it is our place to step in, should atrocities, or even in humane acts occur. If you have the power, use it for good (intentionally cheesy). As good ol' Uncle Ben said (god rest his soul), "With great power, comes great responsibility" p-)
My point is, yes, they have their own religions... however, the practices the Taliban enforce do not coincide with the teachings of the Koran. Murder, suicide, even child molesting is NOT ok by our standards or by the Muslim religion. Yet, you want to say that, 'what business is it of ours?'
Who are we to say they can't conduct themselves in that way? Well, human rights dictate that it's not ok. The fact that ther religion says they can't do those things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dictating what their religion is, I'm not a Muslim... I'm just going off of what I saw overseas, what the Koran says (from what I read) and from what our interpreters and ANA told us.
I have no disagreement that if someone invades, then yeah... fight back. We all would (I'd like to think anyways). Look at the 9/11 attacks, London, Spain... fighting back. I agree with you there. However, I'm still going to go overseas for my country and fight those who mean to do me and my mates harm. That is not going to change. I also don't condone the attacks that claimed the lives of my buddies, just because the enemy was fighting a forien occupying force (which we are not). If you think we should be ok with them killing us because they're just defending their land, then you can explain that to the families of those who've given their lives.
As for the Germany line... obsolutely use that. I was waiting for it anyways. Well let me hit ya with this one (I'm sure you've all heard it before)
According to the Nazi Govn't, they were the good guys. If they won... they would have been the good guys for the rest of time. Take that for a grain of salt obviously.. it's corny and overused I know, but it holds some truth. (I do not condone the actions of the Nazi's, FYI)
SilentType
10-06-2009, 12:30 AM
No. Not "time to get out."
TIME TO GET IN.
Into Pakistan. If we leave Afghanistan we lose. We embolden al Qaeda with the street cred of having defeated two Super Powers. If we leave we watch Afghanistan become yet another terrorist safe heaven.
If we only stay in Afghanistan we get a slow loss.
If we go into Pakistan we get a WIN. That simple and that incredibly complex all at the same time.
little icebear
10-06-2009, 12:33 AM
If we go into Pakistan we get a WIN.
Sure. And whoīs going to do that?
JTP709
10-06-2009, 10:07 AM
Sure. And whoīs going to do that?
Here I am, Send Me
JTP709
10-06-2009, 10:17 AM
I disagree with you that powerful nations need to intervene in the affairs of smaller nations. Like I said before, who are we to say that our way of life is better than their's? It's their cockamammy religion that gives them to power to enforce total control over the population and it's not our place to tell them they're wrong.
We are the only world super power left. We provide the largest military and humanitarian aid and assistance for the UN. As of right now we have the most experienced counter-insurgency military on the planet. If you witnessed your neighbor raping his wife and abusing his children would you do nothing because it doesn't concern you? I know this analogy has been overused, but its how I see the global situation. While I do admit I found the movie funny, but media like "Team America World Police," "Bill Maher," and just news stations in general have made the fact that the US to be the World Police a pejorative concept. Without Law and Order there would only be Chaos, as demonstrated by September 11th.
As I recall a large portion of the population of Afghanistan, aka the Northern Alliance, was trying to oust the Taliban. We helped them do just that. I can't believe people who are already claiming that the population "won't stand up" have forgotten that. They did stand up, and many are standing up by enlisting in the ANA and ANP. While some are corrupt insurgent supporters, most of them are not.
Execratio
10-14-2009, 11:48 AM
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the sacrifices of far better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
Snaggletooth
10-14-2009, 12:14 PM
In the end it all comes down to money. When the United States no longer can afford to continue this unwinnable war they will withdraw.
Solvent
10-14-2009, 12:43 PM
If we only stay in Afghanistan we get a slow loss.
If we go into Pakistan we get a WIN. That simple and that incredibly complex all at the same time.
Pakistan is critical in the war. But how to deal with is incredibly difficult.
Sootan
10-14-2009, 08:12 PM
No. Not "time to get out."
TIME TO GET IN.
If we go into Pakistan we get a WIN. That simple and that incredibly complex all at the same time.
If you go into Pakistan, you may end up with another Afghanistan, only with 10x the headache. And nukes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.