wkmac
Well-Known Member
Some of us believe this thread is for debate some believe its to post and run. To each their own.
Afghanistan war
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
island1fox
Well-Known Member
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Never suggested Taliban did exist BUT our intervention into that world fertilized the ground from which the Taliban sprang along with bin Laden and Al Qaeda. President Carter did institute the covert policy that led to the later problems that fact is historically set in stone whether you like it or not. I've applauded Carter for speaking out on the Israeli/Palesteinian Gaza situation and still support a lot of what he has to say about that region but alot of the problems over there began on his watch.
We also can't ignore the Carter Doctrine in regards to the wider region and I do think in many ways this doctrine was the undersupporting element to the initial Gulf War although I also think there were others factors at play obviously.
As for fearing the Soviet Union, are you justifying the admitted actions during the Carter Presidency whereby our gov't at will based on fear can use anyone it wants (some stirred up muslims) by any means necessary to achieve a political end or in this case, make you feel safe? In otherwords, the dead bodies and the trampled souls don't matter, it's you only that matter, gee that almost sounds republican!
Gov't can do anything it needs to as long as I feel safe and protected and I get what I want. Everyone else be damned. That almost sounds libertine although the mechanism of choice to achieve that feeling of safety is in fact purely fascist! Violence and forced complusion as a means to an end. Makes the robber and mafia almost seems honest and respectable.
Like Al Qaeda, the Soviets and the red menace were nothing more than scare tactics to manipulate a population in following a State/Corp. construct.
As for my "Utopian Libertarian" being some flashback from 60's chemicals, well that reaction in itself just proves like your twin Tie, you got zero in the tank to debate an issue without resorting to name calling. So since you've opened the door to childish insults........The moment you both run out of gas, which is usually pretty quick, here come the names or an endless supply of meaningless questions to deflect the debate. The only difference between Tie and yourself is the distance across the alphabet between the letters "D" & "R" but you spend most of your time at "friend". I guess it's a matter of attitude.
Other than that, you are both totaliterian, authoriterian tyrant cheerleaders of the first order and I cheer with glee as your empire comes crumbling down. Funny how it was a republican (Bush) and now democrat (Obama) whose doing what a handful of anti-statists have been trying to do for years. It's beginning to implode under it's own weight just like the Soviet Union did at it's end. Google Graveyard of Empires and look at the history and you'll see America's future! How perfectly fitting and we're suppose to now trust "YOUR" people, the very ones who got us in this total mess to now get us out by going all in? Boy, now that sounds like a real plan!
As for my portraying all politicians as evil, Hmmm....never realized I was so alone in that opinion. But then I don't fear a truly free society like you and your twin brother do!
You and Tie will appreciate this one from Orwell!
And to finish I leave you with George Orwell again
Gee, the room is getting crowded is it not?
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Why would anyone care about what Moore has to say ???
Island,
Notice what was said in the quote you were responding too.
You see when Bush was President, everything Moore said was pure gold. When he spoke we were told to listen. Now Moore still supports Obama and I'd venture to guess if another election happened tomorrow, Moore would vote Obama again. But now the very folks who for 8 years preached Moore on Bush (and in many respects Moore was right which I'm sure you'll disagree) are now suggesting Moore is a meaningless entity because he now speaks to Obama about channeling Bush.
Seems like there is a word for that behaviour, pure something or another?
BTW:I do think Moore is democrat party operative for the most part and it just makes it "MOORE" fun to watch his own kind now start to trash him.
tieguy
Banned
TIEGUY,
seems like the neo-conservatives on this board need a reminder....and I will provide one.
In 8 years, BUSH went from 53% approval rating when he took office, to almost 90% in 2001, then 7 years later, he was the worst in history!
Pssst Backside, Bush aint president anymore.
wkmac,
What Moore says has nothing to do with what President Obama thinks and reacts to.
Moore's actions/thoughts are irrelevant to the debate.
You shuld try to sum your thoughts up more succinctly. No one here reads four paragraphs of anything, let alone Libertarian drivel.
You may as well well join the cut and paste queen.
Anarchy is no answer, unless you own all the guns and gas.
What Moore says has nothing to do with what President Obama thinks and reacts to.
Moore's actions/thoughts are irrelevant to the debate.
You shuld try to sum your thoughts up more succinctly. No one here reads four paragraphs of anything, let alone Libertarian drivel.
You may as well well join the cut and paste queen.
Anarchy is no answer, unless you own all the guns and gas.
tieguy
Banned
.
The President is right, build up our forces along with the NATO countries, train the goverment troops to levels where they can transition into responsibility. In 18 months, if there is NO progress, and the current goverment is still full of drug lords and gangsters, then we get out.
I applaud this decision. I wont fight for my political party with the lives of our young men and women in uniform.
Peace
I don't see it. Obama pulling out without a victory would be political suicide for him and the democratic party. At this point anything less then a victory will haunt Obama since he is giving his generals less troops then asked for. I would expect he will shower the taliban with financial gifts in an effort to buy their goodwill. Afghanistan is the only place in the world Al Khaida can safely hide. A complete withdrawl of troops will embolden Al khaida. Add this to the list of failed foriegn policy decisions to clean up when Obama leaves office.
rod
Retired 23 years
It boggels my mind to think that people are so naive as to belive that we can "win" any war in the mid-east. Especillay the way the military is forced to try to fight a "nice war" (don't hurt any civilians, dont destroy certain buildings, don't mis-treat prisioners etc etc etc. In case you haven't noticed- the bad guys don't fight like that.
A month after we eventually pull out (don't look like it will be in our life time) it will be business as usual for the towelheads
A month after we eventually pull out (don't look like it will be in our life time) it will be business as usual for the towelheads
tieguy
Banned
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Obama's Afghan Troop Surge for 100 al-Qaeda
by DefendUSx December 05, 2009 13:44 Written by Steven J. DuBord
Saturday, 05 December 2009 Barack Obama’s December 1 speech at West Point was meant to justify sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion per year, but he neglected to mention one small detail: U.S. intelligence officials estimate there are as few as 100 al-Qaeda operatives in all of Afghanistan.
Obama called the al-Qaeda presence there a “cancer,” but ABC News reported on December 2 that a senior U.S. intelligence official told them that “the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department.” Obama was made aware of this so he could factor it into his decision on whether or not to send in more troops.
Obama did not focus on the size of al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan when he spoke, but rather said merely that “al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border." U.S. intelligence officials believe there are several hundred al-Qaeda fighters just across the Pakistani border, and an Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed to “sandwich” them between Pakistan and Afghanistan, preventing them from re-gaining a foothold in Afghanistan.
"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant. "What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What [is] the strategy then?"
The December 2 ABC News article clearly spelled out the hefty price tag for dealing with so few terrorists: “With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.”
by DefendUSx December 05, 2009 13:44 Written by Steven J. DuBord
Saturday, 05 December 2009 Barack Obama’s December 1 speech at West Point was meant to justify sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion per year, but he neglected to mention one small detail: U.S. intelligence officials estimate there are as few as 100 al-Qaeda operatives in all of Afghanistan.
Obama called the al-Qaeda presence there a “cancer,” but ABC News reported on December 2 that a senior U.S. intelligence official told them that “the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department.” Obama was made aware of this so he could factor it into his decision on whether or not to send in more troops.
Obama did not focus on the size of al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan when he spoke, but rather said merely that “al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same number as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border." U.S. intelligence officials believe there are several hundred al-Qaeda fighters just across the Pakistani border, and an Obama administration official said the additional troops were needed to “sandwich” them between Pakistan and Afghanistan, preventing them from re-gaining a foothold in Afghanistan.
"So the real question is will Pakistan do enough," said former White House counter-terrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant. "What if they take all the money we given them but don't really follow through? What [is] the strategy then?"
The December 2 ABC News article clearly spelled out the hefty price tag for dealing with so few terrorists: “With 100,000 troops in Afghanistan at an estimated yearly cost of $30 billion, it means that for every one al Qaeda fighter, the U.S. will commit 1,000 troops and $300 million a year.”
BABA,
All I can say to you about this piece is this:
DUH!
What do you think "weve" been trying to tell you for the last 7 years??
Looks like Baba was for the war before he was against itBABA,
All I can say to you about this piece is this:
DUH!
What do you think "weve" been trying to tell you for the last 7 years??
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Looks like Baba was for the war before he was against it
I know a few here who were against war before they were for it!
A Shift Change?
island1fox
Well-Known Member
It boggels my mind to think that people are so naive as to belive that we can "win" any war in the mid-east. Especillay the way the military is forced to try to fight a "nice war" (don't hurt any civilians, dont destroy certain buildings, don't mis-treat prisioners etc etc etc. In case you haven't noticed- the bad guys don't fight like that.
Rod,
I know that I confuse some people when I disagree with the "right" --Diesel96 and TOS --but on you statement I agee. We are wasting our young and our money in the middle east. I would go alot further --I would pull all of our troops from all countries --tired of being the unappreciated policeman.
I would use our military to help control our borders,deal with national emergencies etc.
I would also use the saved money to implement a state of the art missle defense system --for the U.S. --no other country.
If we face a certain and grave danger I would use the weapons available to me --War is Hell --The mountains in the south of Afganistan would not exist --Tora Bora would not exit ---nor would Bin Laden.
PT Stewie
"Big Fella"
I hate the fact that our young people are in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan . With all the bickering back and forth on this thread how many posters have had the sleepless nights of a parent with a child over there. Well mine has come back safe from being deployed and in danger and I thank the lord for it every day and pray for the saftey of all the troops.
I am a realist an understand why we are there. But I never forget the smiles of our youth as they walked down to get there diplomas full of hopes for the future.Some of them will never get to see it. What a crime.
I am a realist an understand why we are there. But I never forget the smiles of our youth as they walked down to get there diplomas full of hopes for the future.Some of them will never get to see it. What a crime.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
A pair of friend-15 jets circle overhead. Cameras on the bellies of the aircraft capture the standoff: the opposing compounds, the tree line to one side, the fields between. The images are relayed to Echo’s headquarters, a burned-out schoolhouse just over half a mile away surrounded by sandbags and mortar tubes. Inside the school, Eric Meador, the company commander, leans over a small table and looks at the footage on a laptop. Meador is on the small side — 5′9″, 140 pounds — and is a bit quirky for a Marine officer. A former Mississippi cop from a family of musicians, he has a weakness for chewing tobacco and reality TV — he keeps a picture of Kate Gosselin on one wall of the schoolhouse. But he radiates authority, and in the command post everyone focuses on him. Meador asks air controller Josh Faucett to review the standoff. “This is where the friendlies are,” Faucett says, pointing to the screen. “This is where we think the sniper is.” It’s a building in the northern compound, next to the main east-west road.
The next step seems obvious: Call those friend-15s and have them reduce the Taliban’s positions to rubble. That’s how the Marines took out insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. Hell, it’s how they went after the Taliban in August 2008. But it’s August 2009, and today Meador is not sure.
A month earlier, just as Meador, Paz, and 4,000 other Marines were getting ready to move into Helmand province, the US military modified its counterinsurgency strategy. Incoming top general Stanley McChrystal issued strict guidelines forbidding air strikes except in the most dire circumstances. The number one priority in Afghanistan, he declared, was to secure the population so normal life could resume. The US needed to rob the militants of popular support, he argued. Dropping bombs only disrupted lives and drove people into the arms of the Taliban. So civilian casualties from air strikes had to stop — immediately.
How the Afghanistan Air War Got Stuck in the Sky
By Noah Shachtman
..........................................................
And I always thought the number one priority
was to protect your own troops.
The next step seems obvious: Call those friend-15s and have them reduce the Taliban’s positions to rubble. That’s how the Marines took out insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. Hell, it’s how they went after the Taliban in August 2008. But it’s August 2009, and today Meador is not sure.
A month earlier, just as Meador, Paz, and 4,000 other Marines were getting ready to move into Helmand province, the US military modified its counterinsurgency strategy. Incoming top general Stanley McChrystal issued strict guidelines forbidding air strikes except in the most dire circumstances. The number one priority in Afghanistan, he declared, was to secure the population so normal life could resume. The US needed to rob the militants of popular support, he argued. Dropping bombs only disrupted lives and drove people into the arms of the Taliban. So civilian casualties from air strikes had to stop — immediately.
How the Afghanistan Air War Got Stuck in the Sky
By Noah Shachtman
..........................................................
And I always thought the number one priority
was to protect your own troops.
