|
| Posted by: Boxman
- [2951510] Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 15:58
OK. This is a smart move. I read the book Kill Bin Laden around Christmas last year. Highly recommended read that goes over Delta Force's mission to...well...kill OBL and how things got in the way of that.
Hopefully we take the handcuffs off and let these boys kill.
1,000 More Special Forces to Afghanistan |
| | | 1 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Jun 05, 2009, 17:35
|
Boxman, would you shoot me an email? Thx.
|
|
| | | 2 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Tue, Jun 09, 2009, 02:20
|
Oh the gloves are off. Just ask the 100+ civilians we dropped bombs "accidentally" on last month. Oh you can't ask them, their dead.
New boss, same as the old boss.
|
|
| | | 3 | Boldwin
ID: 133532810
Tue, Jun 09, 2009, 07:45
|
Smart bombs just love weddings.
According to the Taliban.
|
|
| | | 4 | Razor
ID: 371502414
Tue, Jun 09, 2009, 08:15
|
And the US military.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Jul 20, 2009, 16:01
|
A glimpse on the ground via Thomas Friedman.
Food for thought.
|
|
| | | 6 | nerveclinic
ID: 66532112
Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 13:53
|
Smart bombs just love weddings.
According to the Taliban.
Don't embarrass yourself any more then you already do. Really that comment just shows your dishonesty if an issue spins a way you don't like.
We killed a large number of civilians.
The government we installed and are keeping propped up chastised us for it and at the time said they were considering stopping bombing in certain areas.
The US military admited it and apologized and paid blood money.
Do you white out the stories in the paper you don't like? Or doesn't WND mention this stuff?
|
|
| | | 7 | Boldwin
ID: 376192015
Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 15:06
|
Oh, you believe every one of those Taliban claims, do you?
|
|
| | | 8 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Tue, Jul 21, 2009, 16:33
|
I just spent a weekend with Afghanistan and Iraq vets at Fort Lewis who had no problem discussing the considerable civilian collateral damage.
I'd love to see the reactions on their faces after you accused them of spreading Taliban propaganda.
|
|
| | | 9 | Seattle Zen
ID: 58842111
Wed, Sep 02, 2009, 00:00
|
Very interesting piece written by George Will. I have a strong feeling that our time in Afghanistan and Iraq will be coming to a quick close thanks to a Democratic Congress.
Loss of Will
Yesterday Politico reported that George Will was going to call for “U.S. ground troops to leave Afghanistan,” and in his Washington Post column today Will does just that: “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan.”
Will’s column comes at crucial moment in the conflict, which candidate Obama called a war of necessity (as opposed to the war of choice in Iraq). Once in office, President Obama sent 17,000 more troops to the country, then sacked the U.S. commander there. Tomorrow he gets the initial assessment of his new commander, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is expected to follow up with a request for more troops, anywhere from 10,000 to 45,000.
|
|
| | | 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 3781924
Wed, Sep 02, 2009, 05:28
|
It would appear that perhaps we Americans, are just now realizing what the Soviets learned a few decades ago. You can not, defeat a philosophy via force of arms. It can not be done, without utterly eliminating every "believer" of that philosophy and even then, it is possible for the philosophy to be resurrected by new believers.
The Soviets went into Afghanistan and were ultimately sent home. While I agree that our presence there is "warranted" by what happened here in 2001, I think the final outcome of our presence there won;t be much different from the Soviets experience.
|
|
| | | 11 | Boldwin
ID: 07362823
Wed, Sep 02, 2009, 06:39
|
Has anyone here even considered what that particular area of the world means to jihadist interpretation of the Koran during their version of 'the end times'?
Better consider what pulling the cork from that bottle means. You won't discover Barbara Eden I am guessing.
|
|
| | | 12 | walk
ID: 147451314
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 15:33
|
What is the View on Afghanistan?
I think this is pretty topical, and does not get a ton of press, but is certainly a big one for me. I think that we should get out of Afghanistan, or at best, do special ops there for terrorists. I cannot see defeating the taliban without like a world of help. The terrain is awful, Pakistan aides the taliban, and the government is forever corrupt.
China wants to mine copper there, but not send in troops. Who does? Is there really a way to "win"...? (Whatever winning is)
"The graveyard of Empires." I know no President or country wants to admit defeat, surrender, whatever, but it's a casualty pit, a money pit, and in another debt builder. I don't want a surge here; nothing works in Afghanistan. What about the rest of you? Stay the course, increase, decrease?
|
|
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 15:36
|
Has anyone here even considered what that particular area of the world means to jihadist interpretation of the Koran during their version of 'the end times'?
if you have an answer to your own question, i am sure i am not the only here curious to hear it.
|
|
| | | 14 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 16:22
|
"The graveyard of Empires." never heard that term but historically that is great name for Afghanistan...though i believe Alexander the great did OK there, but he exception to every rule.
|
|
| | | 15 | walk
ID: 147451314
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 16:24
|
Just a reprint from the NYT article. It does seem like a tough place to win on the road. I don't see us pulling this one out. Favre or no Favre.
|
|
| | | 16 | Boldwin
ID: 1794329
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 22:02
|
In their version of the end times, the universal moslem califate starts it's worldwide triumph there.
|
|
| | | 17 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Oct 07, 2009, 23:04
|
well, if that's right, then we have your hero Ronald Reagan to blame for the Jihadist victory. He is, after all, the man that supplied them with their weapons.
I suppose there is something to be said for your hero to bring on the End Times, since its something you crave as well.
Interesting how much you have in common with the Jihadists. Different religion, same hopes.
|
|
| | |
| | | 19 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Wed, Oct 14, 2009, 23:20
|
You are right, boikin, that first article was very good. Interestingly, I agree with many of he conclusions he comes to, and not with others.
For instance, I completely agree with this paragraph:
Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions.
But do not draw the same conclusion he does in his following paragraph.
Of course, one could make an excellent case that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan is precisely what would lead to our decline, by demoralizing our military, signaling to our friends worldwide that we cannot be counted on and demonstrating that our enemies have greater resolve than we do. That is why we have no choice in Afghanistan but to add troops and continue to fight.
I don't buy at all that the military would be "demoralized" with withdrawing from Afghanistan. Counter insurgency operations take on average 14 or more years to succeed. If the American people decide that they are not interested in submitting to a 15 year war, something we have NEVER done in the history of our country, I hardly believe that the guys being shot at and bombed are going to hang their heads when told to come home.
How did America every recover from the fact that there were millions of Vietnamese who were willing to live in caves for as long as it took to drive the US Armed Forces away from their shores? Oh, an enemy shows more "resolve" than us, we are going to lose our freedom because these enemies are going to invade and occupy us? It's infuriating, this ridiculous notion that leaving Afghanistan is "losing".
|
|
| | | 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Wed, Oct 14, 2009, 23:49
|
I agree, Zen. I see no demoralized troops after pulling back from the surge in Iraq--quite the opposite, in fact. Troops get demoralized when they are asked to sacrifice senselessly (Iraq, Hamburger Hill, etc).
I read somewhere where a soldier coming home from Afghanistan had the best summary of the country I've heard yet. In responding to a question of what we can do to "civilize" the country, he said: "You don't understand. They want to live that way."
Who are we to argue with that?
|
|
| | | 21 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 13:37
|
Well, the counter argument is that if we're going to pull out of Afghanistan, what's our plan for fighting terrorism? Ya, we're not fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but when we leave, do they setup shop there again? I believe anti-terrorism is a matter primarily for the intelligence agencies, but if and when a country is so complicit in the plotting of terrorist attacks, then it also becomes a military matter.
|
|
| | | 22 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 13:43
|
Pakistan should be our focus now. Terrorism isn't effectively fought with large land armies. It's actually pretty silly.
|
|
| | | 23 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 13:58
|
I don't think anyone is arguing that we're going to square off against General Bin Laden in the plains of Afghanistan. The problem is that if the Taliban retake control of the country, what's to stop Bin Laden from coming out of hiding and terrorist training camps from starting up there again? Or from destabilizing Pakistan? Afghanistan can be the most ass backwards country on Earth for all I care if that's what they want, but when they start committing human rights violations and plotting to kill civilians in other countries that it becomes an international matter.
|
|
| | | 24 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 14:11
|
I don't believe that anyone can control the country--that is kind of the point. And our problem wasn't the Taliban per se--it was that the Taliban was allowing Al Qaeda to hole up in areas under their control
The best plan is to go after the problem, instead of spending time and lives trying to clean up after our own messes caused by going into countries we think are helping terrorists.
|
|
| | | 25 | Mith
Dude
ID: 01629107
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 14:16
|
An assessment obviously must be made regarding the continuing need for fighting in Afghanistan. ObviouslyI could be way off I do agree that regarding American interests, we seem pretty far into the area of diminished rate of return for our continued investment there.
But since the Afghans themselves have the biggest stake in whatever the US decides to do, their perspectives should be considered with as much weight as just about any other factor.
|
|
| | | 26 | astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Thu, Oct 15, 2009, 21:45
|
boikin, thanks for the articles. that was the first time i heard about the Chinese exploits of this large copper reserve. it was alluded to in the article, but i'm curious as to why the US didn't work to secure this mine (or atleast share it with the chinese). do you have any more information? was it solely that our previous administration didn't pursue it (i reckon there is more to it than that)?
|
|
| | | 27 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 14:07
|
Does anyone know how many tanks Al Qaeda has?
|
|
| | | 28 | DWetzel at work
ID: 49962710
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 16:56
|
Probably fewer tanks than airplanes, at least on average.
What's your point?
|
|
| | | 29 | Building 7
ID: 471052128
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 17:42
|
I'm working on a blog entry. I can't find anything where Al Qaeda has any tanks.
|
|
| | | 30 | biliruben
ID: 461142511
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 18:29
|
I assumed that was a joke. No. Almost by definition, no tanks as far as I know.
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 19:14
|
They might be living out of a couple. But no functioning ones that I'm aware of. My copy of Jane's isn't handy...
|
|
| | | 32 | Building 7
ID: 43735169
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 20:15
|
What about battleships, airplanes, submarines, helicopters, or fighter jets. Does anybody think Al Qaeda has any of those. Looks like DWetzel thinks they have some airplanes.
|
|
| | | 33 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 20:59
|
I think that was a joke too.
If you think we should disband our military, I would guess
your argument is more with the new colonialists then folks
around these parts.
|
|
| | | 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 21:14
|
The whole point of Al Qaeda is that they fight without the standard tools of armies. That's what terrorism is.
They have virtually none of the infrastructure of modern armies. On the other hand, they have literally hundreds of people willing to blow themselves up in crowded civilian areas.
|
|
| | | 35 | Building 7
ID: 43735169
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 21:20
|
I forgot they did have some monkey bars.
America has been hiding under the covers for 8 years, and this Al Quueeda has nothing. The Luxembourg army can kick their ass. I've read
Al Qeeoda used to share an office in Kabul with Chaos. Homeland Security said Al Quieada is in 60 countries. How is the war on terror, or whatever you're supposed to call it now, going to end .
By definition, it cannot. Unless we vote for someone to end it. And it's not going to be a D or R. But, we'll pump some more trillions into it. What did Afghanistan ever do to the USA. What's the mission over there?
Protect the poppy trade for the CIA?. I thought people voted for Obama to bring our troops home. One would think they would be upset that he has not.
But they aren't. I'm more upset than them.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 21:40
|
Well, Obama was very clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.
I share your impatience, however. During the last 6 years of Bush I had the exact same feelings.
|
|
| | | 37 | astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 22:02
|
What did Afghanistan ever do to the USA. I thought Afghanistan harbored terrorists for the longest time (read: afforded them a safe haven). Am I mistaken, B7?
|
|
| | | 38 | Emperor Building 7
ID: 126371618
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 22:24
|
They've had 8 years to round them up.
Al Qaeiouda is in 60 countries. Thus, 60 countries are harboring terrorists.Are we going to go into all of those countries and get them?
|
|
| | | 39 | astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 23:07
|
Cool, so then we agree that Afghanistan (just like Pakistan and other countries) afforded terrorists a safe haven for some time.
|
|
| | | 40 | biliruben
Leader
ID: 589301110
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 23:09
|
I don't completely disagree with you, B7. However, I do think we have an obligation to Afghanis. I think we owe it to them to not leave their country in a shambles, in as much as they want us to help.
|
|
| | | 41 | Emperor Building 7
ID: 126371618
Fri, Oct 16, 2009, 23:29
|
Our puppet government there wants us to help. I've heard their elections were a fraud, but do not know any details more than that.
astade: There are probably terrorists in every country. I don't know that the leaders of the country condone it or know about it. Thinking back to 2001, the taliban were in charge of Afghanistan. And I remember video of them destroying some 14th century Buddha statues built into the side of a mountain. Beautiful creations. I can't remenber if the taliban could have done anything about Bin Laden. Plus Bin Laden is not wanted for 911.
|
|
| | | 42 | Pancho Villa
ID: 49371911
Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 12:38
|
It would be a big mistake to think that Obama is impervious to the goals of the military industrial complex. Besides being an integral part of our economy(it's one of the few manufacturing industries still US dominated), the entire meaning of national defense has become completely distorted, something that most conservatives(excluding Ron Paul conservatives) have been instrumental in promoting. That's not to say that many Democrats haven't also played a large part in this distortion, either because they have large defense contractors in their districts, are afraid of being portrayed as "weak" on defending the country or both.
|
|
| | | 43 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 13:02
|
Here, here, Pancho
I think the administration is using some very cold political calculus right now. They are taking hits on healthcare and "cap and trade". They opened themselves up to the predictable "liberal!" accusations with the takeover of GM and TARP money. Why give the other side more ammunition - "you are weak!" when you can just keep sending America's youth to get killed in Afghanistan?
|
|
| | | 44 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Oct 19, 2009, 14:25
|
to the goals of the military industrial complex.
what are their goals, i am not sure that they would not prefer the us to be fighting a remove war with tomahawk missiles and drones. Manufactures make more money off used tomahawks than used bullets. They also make more money off dreaming up new weapons that will never be used than using the weapons they have already designed.
|
|
| | |
| | | 46 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 09:51
|
I want to say first that I am a true coservative. I support Sarah Palin. I strongly agree with less government. I hate MSNBC but I do watch Matthews, schultz, olbermen, and maddow to get the other side view points. I also watch the fox channel even more flipping back and forth. The night obama spoke at west point chris matthews said he was at the enemy camp. He got a lot of flack for that comment. The next night he apolgized for his comments. I disagree with him99% of the time even with those comments, but he earned a lot of respect from me for apologizing quickly and saying he was wrong. I would like to see more of this. If you make a mistake and apologize for it immediately I think it will go away quicker. I would like to see more politicians and celebrities to learn a lesson from Matthews. Well done Chris.
|
|
| | | 47 | walk
ID: 291046510
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 13:22
|
Thanks for getting this thread going. I am partial to leaving Afghanistan, but also in helping them rebuild their society. I do not want to send in 30k more troops. I wish Obama would realize that no one can truly occupy or secure that country. I think it's a waste of lives and money. Our country also cannot afford it. I think Obama is afraid of being accused of being weak, surrendering and cutting and running. I do not care. I think it's MORE courageous to make the decision to get the military out.
However, I also realize that the likely bigger reason we are there, and are escalating, is because of Pakistan. They have nukes, they have a rising Taliban, and rising instability. They are already complaining that the US is pulling out too quickly, so therefore they might as well befriend the Taliban. I am not sure I want us to be in this backyard forever. I say let Pakistan and its neighbors sort that out, too. We just cannot afford to be the sole cop in this game.
Kristoff below has some good points. The other article talks about Pakistan's role.
NYT, Kristoff
NYT, Pakistan Crucial to Afghan Build-Up
|
|
| | | 48 | Bauxman
ID: 2110171217
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 20:49
|
The Nobel Winner sends 30k more to Afghanistan to occupy 10,000 square miles of sand?
Another losing idea.
Send the troops home. Stop wasting their time like Bush did. Leave the special forces there, supply them with ample sniper rifle ammo and have them do assassination missions until the cows come home.
That desolate hellhole has not been occupied since Alexander The Great. Quit trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
|
|
| | | 49 | astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Fri, Dec 04, 2009, 01:23
|
Nuclear Gophers, good post. I think the TV media in general (MSNBC, Fox, etc) need to own their words and when they mess up, come clean. Responsible journalism doesn't just apply to print media.
|
|
| | | 50 | walk
ID: 44111268
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 09:12
|
NYT: How Obama Came to Plan Surge in Afghanistan
Pretty fascinating behind the scenes type play by play of the decision making process behind the recent decision on Afghanistan. I am sure there are other articles like this out there, or brewing, from mags, too. I don't agree with the decision, but if accurate, I am pleased about the degree of inquiry and the opportunity for folks to disagree throughout.
|
|
| | | 51 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 11:38
|
"The Nobel Winner sends 30k more to Afghanistan to occupy 10,000 square miles of sand?
Another losing idea.
Send the troops home. Stop wasting their time like Bush did. Leave the special forces there, supply them with ample sniper rifle ammo and have them do assassination missions until the cows come home.
That desolate hellhole has not been occupied since Alexander The Great. Quit trying to put a square peg in a round hole. "
Now you're making the trolling just too obvious.
|
|
| | | 52 | sarge33rd
ID: 5511877
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 08:08
|
re 50: Thanks for that link walk. Assuming a reasonable degree of accuracy on the content of the article; it shows Obama to be a careful and deliberate thinker. Qualities I find particularly essential given the current times.
|
|
| | | 53 | walk
ID: 44111268
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 19:29
|
Right, Sarge. I am not thrilled with the decisions, but generally believe play by play type accounts, and it also seems a bit consistent with Obama's MO. I don't think that 30k troops can make a diff in that country though.
|
|
| | | 54 | Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 00:06
|
Another Vietnam? I think so only fewer casualties. When the
heck are we going to start truly taking care of our own and stop
trying to impose our way of life on others?
We constantly try to help and all we get for our efforts is more
death and debt. If these people truly wanted to be free they
would rise up and be free. They've been give Arms, money,
training and opportunity but here we are years later still riding a
dead horse. You ride that dead horse long enough you begin to
smell like a dead horse.
|
|
| | | 55 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 10:27
|
If these people truly wanted to be free they
would rise up and be free.
this war is not about them it is about us. I mean if along the way we can help the people we will but in the end "freedom" for Afghanistan is just strategy.
|
|
| | |
| | | 57 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 15:41
|
I hear the moral is horrible over there. This is money we can be spending here. I really think its time we left also.
This is from Breitbart.
Canada tells Clinton troops are leaving
Mar 30 11:14 AM US/Eastern
By ROB GILLIES
Associated Press Writer
Comments (111)Email to a friend Share on Facebook Tweet this
OTTAWA (AP) - Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.
Clinton went on Canadian television on Monday and said the U.S. would like Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan past 2011 and suggested they could switch from a combat to a training role.
But Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for Harper, says Harper told Clinton on Tuesday that after 2011 Canada will be involved in a civilian mission focused largely on aid and reconstruction.
Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon also ruled out any form of a military mission post-2011 at a news conference late Monday night following Clinton's remarks.
Harper and Clinton met for 20 minutes on the sidelines of the Group of Eight foreign ministers meeting.
|
|
| | | 58 | Biliruben movin
ID: 358252515
Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 16:18
|
The solution is clear. Annex.
|
|
| | | 59 | astade
Sustainer
ID: 214361313
Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 01:35
|
RE 57: The morale has been horrible since day one. Look at the historical precedent in that region. It's a sucker's game. The recent stories about us overlooking opium production and corrupt chieftains to garner quick wins is absurd. It's against everything we should champion yet we are compromising our core values. Similar to Iraq, the question I have is how do we get out of there without leaving a bigger mess than was initially there. That is the responsible thing to do at this juncture. Any ideas?
|
|
| | | 60 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 04:58
|
Just leave, do you really think it makes a difference. I heard the time it took Obama to make his speech to the troops, it cost us 1.25 million dollars.
|
|
| | | 61 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 16:48
|
Similar to Iraq, the question I have is how do we get out of there without leaving a bigger mess than was initially there. That is the responsible thing to do at this juncture. Any ideas?
i don't the two are comparable in that sense. the place was mess to start with still is mess and if anything we have at least weakened some the "bad" people there.
|
|
| | | 62 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 7115138
Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 17:02
|
as we leave lets take out all of Irans Nuclear facilities to lighten the load on our jet planes coming home.
|
|
| | | 63 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, May 10, 2010, 15:03
|
A poem to die for.
Unlike Rubin, in another NRO piece, I don't believe this is cause for us to become the Kurdish police. But it is an opportunity to wonder why we are so quick to back people who can be pretty nasty sometimes.
|
|
| | |
| | | 65 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 10:28
|
Good thing the Chinese already beat us to it and have already built mines that US is protecting.
|
|
| | | 66 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 10:37
|
Slightly related, because of the proximity to Afghanistan and the US(and Russia) having an important air base in the country, is the chaos and genocide of Uzbeks currently going on in the south of Kyrgyzstan.
All the elements of an Afghanistan-like situation are imperceptibly becoming available in Kyrgyzstan: a weak and ineffectual state structure, leadership lacking in legitimacy, impassable ethnic divides, a deepening economic crisis and acute poverty, a heavy dependence on foreign aid, drug-mafia and Islamist militants - and a land-locked geography and demographic spread that invite outside interference and complicate the civil-war conditions.
|
|
| | |
| | | 68 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 11:46
|
I think we are going to leave minerals or not. we will let the more ethically challenged countries of world exploit afghan wealth.
|
|
| | | 69 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 11:59
|
I'm reminded of some African countries in which the discovery of minerals (especially oil) has merely calcified corrupt dictators.
|
|
| | | 70 | Boldwin
ID: 545192117
Mon, Jun 21, 2010, 21:03
|
Those 'Trillion Dollar Lithium Deposits' the NYT is trumpeting...about a 1/300 chance of having any merit.
So whose water were they carrying with that story and why? All the news that's fit to...
|
|
| | | 71 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 10:00
|
Top general being summoned to the White House woodshed
Not sure what McChrystal what thinking here. You don't get to that high of a position without some sense of political sensibility. Of course, you don't get that high without a healthy arrogance, either I guess.
|
|
| | | 72 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 11:15
|
Not sure what McChrystal what thinking here.
maybe he wants out or at least give me want I want or get me out. I have to think there comes a point where if things are not going as you thought or hoped you might just not care anymore.
|
|
| | | 73 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 11:21
|
Could be. He seems to want to want more resources, etc. into Afghanistan, which Obama is delivering (over the objections of many Democrats, including those in his cabinet).
Obama seems to be working the drone angle a lot more for Afghanistan (which, given the nature of that country, is probably the best way to handle things). And for what it is worth, the drones appear to be getting better and better at taking out the targets they are supposed to.
I dunno. Be interesting to see how this shakes out. I don't want to project here, but iIt could be that many in the military just don't feel that Afghanistan has the pressing need for military action as other places.
|
|
| | | 74 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 11:31
|
The problem is that McChrystal is an ass (not to mention a bunch of other much more terrible things).
And also that Obama was an even bigger ass for putting him in charge of Afghanistan.
|
|
| | | 75 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 13:38
|
re: 71 I just finished the reading the rolling stone piece on McChrystal. Man the guy sounds like a modern day Patton and honestly I am not sure what was said in the article that would be so upsetting to the president, except maybe the honesty about the war not going well.
|
|
| | | 76 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 13:47
|
Publicly ripping his CO is not permitted in the military. Pattan, is probably a good analogy, but McArthur is a better one (who, you probably recall, was fired himself).
It sounds like he (or his aides) are sore winners, constantly whining about members of the Administration who disagree with them, despite the fact that they have gotten virtually everything they want.
They seem like gung ho snake eaters carried over from a Dick Cheney all-star team.
|
|
| | | 77 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 14:55
|
They seem like gung ho snake eaters carried over from a Dick Cheney all-star team.
I think they admit that themselves in there.
It sounds like he (or his aides) are sore winners, constantly whining about members of the Administration who disagree with them, despite the fact that they have gotten virtually everything they want.
I guess for me there is nothing new in the article. That is how the military talks, no one should be surprised that the reporter hears it.
|
|
| | | 78 | Boldwin
ID: 545192117
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 16:33
|
They seem like gung ho snake eaters - PD
Naturally a liberal would say that like it was a bad thing for a soldier to be.
|
|
| | | 79 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 17:14
|
The "bad thing" is the part you chose to cut out from the comment, Baldwin.
In any case, I'm happy to measure the military service of my family up against yours any day of the week.
Those aides making those comments are a disgrace to the uniform worn by those thousands of soldiers who do their job every single day. Some on the Right would like to make this about how the military can't stand Obama. But mostly this is about how those making the comments lack the self control to keep their political thoughts from interfering with their jobs. Badmouthing the Commander in Chief reflects a lack of self control, not some insight into how soldiers think.
|
|
| | | 80 | Boldwin
ID: 545192117
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 20:45
|
He doth protest too much.
|
|
| | | 81 | Boldwin
ID: 545192117
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 21:00
|
The actual interview in case it hasn't already been linked to.
|
|
| | | 82 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 21:20
|
Who, exactly, is protesting too much? Is that your new way of avoiding the point?
|
|
| | | 83 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 21:39
|
I, for one, am glad: the other ways of avoiding the point were getting rather tiresome.
Wasn't he the person who said that if you hadn't served in the military that you couldn't have any opinions about it? Do I need to search that?
|
|
| | | 84 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Tue, Jun 22, 2010, 21:42
|
Could be. Maybe that's when he found out that it was only the "liberals" on the board who had military service.
|
|
| | | 85 | Boldwin
ID: 57548233
Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 04:49
|
Let's cut the crap.
This interview was as predictable as the sunrise.
Liberals predictably are pushing back against a general who has managed to get Mr 'I'll-get-us-out-of-the-war' into signing off on a policy that trippled the troops in the war.
The liberal reporter went out and found the easiest thing to find in the military, a general who thinks liberals are wimps and idiots who have no business being involved in wars and foreign policy decisions, and tried to hang him with his own honest opinion.
The reporter is now claiming to be surprised at the repercussions. Being a liberal that is the first tell. Watch what he is trying to divert your attention from and assume the opposite of what he tells you is true.
|
|
| | | 86 | Pancho Villa
ID: 29118157
Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 07:22
|
a general who thinks liberals are wimps and idiots who have no business being involved in wars and foreign policy decisions, and tried to hang him with his own honest opinion.
If that's his honest opinion, then he should resign. If that's his honest opinion, he should have never accepted the position.
|
|
| | | 87 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 10:42
|
The General and his suckups would feel the exact same about anyone who disagrees with them, liberal, conservative, or moderate. It is the nature of closed-minded arrogance. Anyone who thinks this is about the anti-liberal military doesn't get it (and misses the whole point of chain of command). This is a guy who thinks the rules don't apply to him. A guy who covers up things, and hates oversight.
He's a huge ass, but Obama was willing to use him to get the job done so long as their interests matched and he got the job done. Unfortunately, getting exactly what he wanted wasn't enough for the General (it never is---for him, getting what he wants is only to be expected).
This is about an arrogant general without the self-control to know when he's crossed the line with his commander.
|
|
| | |
| | | 89 | Texas Flood
ID: 114182921
Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 14:47
|
Petraeus who was formerly know as Betrayus? Liberals gotta
like that move. What ever happened to Patty Sheehan?
Didn't our government tell us that Afghanistan/Iraq would
NOT become another Viet Nam.....Lying bastards!
|
|
| | | 90 | Mith
ID: 4435321
Wed, Jun 23, 2010, 23:34
|
"known as Betrayus"
Is that how he was known?
I think there are few liberals who have been paying attention
who wouldn't prefer Petreus. Do you really think a Move On
ad from 3 years ago offers an accurate assessment of how
the left will react?
|
|
| | | 91 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Thu, Jun 24, 2010, 00:58
|
Yeah, what ever happened to Patty Sheehan?
If you meant Cindy Sheehan, yeah, I'm with you TF, I wanted her over Petraeus, no doubt.
|
|
| | | 92 | Texas Flood
ID: 114182921
Thu, Jun 24, 2010, 08:44
|
Yeah that was her name! Patty was the hot little sister.
Mith, just saw a little humor and irony in the Betrayus
appointment. He and President Ass Kick will make a great
combination.
|
|
| | | 93 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Fri, Jun 25, 2010, 09:57
|
the easiest thing to find in the military, a general who thinks liberals are wimps and idiots who have no business being involved in wars and foreign policy decisions, and tried to hang him with his own honest opinion.
That's exactly the type of gross misconception that a narrow, black-and-white, anti-nuance worldview will inevitably lead to.
Marc Ambinder:Even more about McChrystal: now it can be told. The story about him voting for Obama is not contrived. He is a political liberal. He is a social liberal. He banned Fox News from the television sets in his headquarters. Yes, really. This puts to rest another false rumor: that McChrystal deliberately precipitated his firing because he wants to run for President.
|
|
| | | 94 | Boldwin
ID: 185342522
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 05:59
|
Understanding just what a cheap and easy trick the far left just pulled with McChrystal.
|
|
| | | 95 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 08:21
|
Funny. He and his aides got drunk with someone they knew to be a reporter and badmouthed the White House on the record, and it is the "left's" fault? Heh.
The party of dis-responsibility continues down its brightly lit path of denial...
|
|
| | | 96 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 09:30
|
Has it ever been about anything other than finding someone else to blame for them?
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 185342522
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 20:38
|
He forgot the number one lesson of the Viet Nam War.
In any American war thereafter, the USA press is the most valuable and dangerous, willing tool of the enemy.
Closely followed by liberals in general.
|
|
| | | 98 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 21:23
|
But preceded by a large margin by lying liars willing to do anything to defend any action, no matter how grievously incompetent or vile it may be, under the guise of patriotism.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Jun 26, 2010, 22:49
|
"The enemy" in Afghanistan, being who, exactly?
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 12529277
Sun, Jun 27, 2010, 08:29
|
Do you have the slightest clue what passages in the Koran draws al qeada to Pakistan and Afghanistan at this time? Tho I've pointed it out to you several times does it even ring a bell?
|
|
| | | 101 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Sun, Jun 27, 2010, 10:40
|
Yawn. I can make the Bible look like it's the most evil and terrible thing ever if I toss about the worst sounding quotes with no regard for context.
|
|
| | | 102 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sun, Jun 27, 2010, 11:12
|
Boldwin also seems to be of the belief that there is some clear and identifiable "enemy."
|
|
| | | 103 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Sun, Jun 27, 2010, 11:42
|
In any American war thereafter, the USA press is the most valuable and dangerous, willing tool of the enemy.
Closely followed by liberals in general.
do you ever have a thought of your own in your brain, or do you just continue to regurgitate what you hear on the radio?
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 106 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 75412823
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 00:43
|
"Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." UCMJ Article 88
The Sec'y of Transportation is still in there because the Coast Guard used to fall under his purview.
It was absolutely imperative that the Commander in Chief act decisively, whatever his decision, lest the whole idea of the Chain of Command fall apart. If you haven't served, you only get it in an abstract manner. There is nothing more important to the structure of the military than instant willing obedience to lawful orders. And civilian command and control of the military is more important than any other command relationship in the armed forces. Lose that, and you have what - the army making it's own foreign policy? A military junto? Would the Right talkers here have the POTUS exercise less Executive control? Ridiculious.
Boldwin. I take great exception to your constant harping against "liberals/progressives" and how you constantly question the patriotism and motives of anyone who doesn't subscribe to the braying of the Coulter/Beck/Rush/Savage crowd. I will stand my years of service in the Marine Corps and Army against anyone here (with the exception of Sarge). Seriously. I believe enough in the idea of this country, and that we can be such an engine for progress - an agency for good - that I reenlisted after an 11 year break - that means the knowledge that there's long separation from family, friends, that you're walking away from a good, soft civilian career. It's putting your money where your mouth is. It means turning your life upside down because you BELIEVE. If you can step up to that, I'll sit and lurk quietly again. If not, stop with the "liberals are a valuable, willing and dangerous tool of the enemy" sh!t.
|
|
| | | 107 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 09:18
|
Has anyone else noticed now eerily similar this whole story is to the movie "Almost Famous". Clearly General McCrystal does not watch many movies or he would have know exactly what was going to happens when you let the "enemy" in...
RE: 105 that is kind what you have to expect when it seems like Rolling Stone is only people doing actual investigated journalism.
|
|
| | | 108 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 10:08
|
106 - nice to see you here again Sox, albeit briefly.
your comments on the problem with what happened here are good stuff from someone in a position to know.
your comments on Baldwin's constant over-generalizations were spot on, and for me, probably the biggest problem i have as well with anything he says. it's an us vs. them vacuum, often speaking from a point of ignorance or inexperience.
108 - i think there was a time where the media and those they covered had a wink wink handshake "don't print this relationship". back in the day, beat reporters would travel with their sports teams, and whatever happened in the bar, stayed in the bar.
not so much anymore, sadly.
|
|
| | | 109 | Boldwin
ID: 575102918
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 19:19
|
Sox
If Cindy Sheehan didn't exist, how much do you think Mullah Omar would pay to invent her?
If Cindy Sheehan didn't exist how easy would it be to find another?
|
|
| | | 110 | Boldwin
ID: 575102918
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 19:24
|
Sox
I completely agree that it is essential that the military uphold the tradition of obeying the civilian authority. No one wants to see military juntas taking over the government like in so many other places in the world.
On the otherhand, what order do you think he disobeyed and what quote actually attributed to him was he fired for?
|
|
| | | 111 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 155522920
Tue, Jun 29, 2010, 21:55
|
Cindy Sheehan was/is a marginal figure at best, boldwin. Your elevation of her to some kind of mainstream folk hero gives her far more credit than she ever really garnered in any quarters but the far Left. Most moderates (and any decent person) sympathise with her loss, but recognize that her politics are far more liberal (and even utopian) than most of the country.
And lest we forget, her "schtick" is the loss of her son in Iraq. I wonder if you would sit quietly at home if you lost a child in the same manner, and under the same circumstances (ie; not believing the war was necessary or justified). Somehow I doubt it.
As to McChrystal, there was no "order he disobeyed", but clearly there was a level of disrespect exhibited towards the civilian command structure by McChrystal and his staff. And before you say "well it's his staff, not him", it is him as commander if he allows that level of dissatisfaction to boil over into comments that violate Article 88. Add to that his track record - which includes an active hand in the Pat Tillman cover-up and the '06 detainee abuse and torture scandal at Camp Nama, and he had to be disciplined. Even his very public drumming up support for more troops while Obama made his decision is, by the strictest interpretation, mildly insuboordinate.
I personally like the idea of a CO that speaks his mind with his troops and the public. I know from friends (well, one) that they loved the way he did business at JSOC while he was there, and he is known as an extremely smart and hard working soldier. But in the end it's about the accountability and the chain of command. Obama simply did what was necessary to preserve that. A president who doesn’t show his generals who's boss is no longer running anything.
|
|
| | | 112 | Boldwin
ID: 43528308
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 09:28
|
I'll give you an E for effort, but I gave you an impossible job.
Your elevation of her to some kind of mainstream folk hero - Liberals aren't mainstream.
As to McChrystal, there was no "order he disobeyed" - Thank you
I personally like the idea of a CO that speaks his mind with his troops - Thank you
|
|
| | | 113 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 09:51
|
So, if liberals aren't mainstream, does that mean by definition that the "mainstream" media isn't liberal?
Or do you just get to totally make word definitions up as you go along?
|
|
| | | 114 | Mith
ID: 37540118
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 09:55
|
If Sheehan was a liberal folk hero, she was one with about as much staying power as Joe the Plumber had on the right. And like him, Sheehan hung around after her 15 minutes were up.
Of course, unlike the unlicensed plumber's helper who became famous for deliberately stepping in front of a camera (and making his point with a phoney sob story about how Obama's proposals will prevent him from buying a business that he could only afford in his dreams - in lieu of the actual truth that he would have been better off under the proposed tax policy) Sheehan most certainly did not willfully set up her moment of fame and it was certainly not based on any lie.
|
|
| | | 115 | Boldwin
ID: 43528308
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 10:36
|
"[The American anti-war movement] was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."
"The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." - Bui Tin, served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, once interrogated John McCain, Vice Chief Editor of the People's Daily (Nhân Dân, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Vietnam), responsible for the Sunday People's (Nhân Dân Chủ Nhật)
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 10:48
|
1. The Vietnam War ended 35 years ago. congrats on living in the present.
2. note your own quote - "America lost because of its democracy."
by using this quote to support your own "facts", you do appear to be also be supporting the end of American democracy.
|
|
| | | 117 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 10:49
|
America lost because of its democracy
Good.
|
|
| | | 118 | Boldwin
ID: 43528308
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 10:51
|
See #97.
|
|
| | | 119 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 10:59
|
...for an example of idiocy.
|
|
| | | 120 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 11:00
|
America soured on the Vietnam War because the essential lie of the war (that we were "winning") was shown to be such to the American people through the Press reporting the truth.
Drilling down a little deeper on this "Press is a willing tool of the enemy" meme, one merely has to do the thought exercise of "what would happen if you removed the press from the equation, then. Apparently conservatives want a military which lies about its ability to pursue and attain a military strategy and they want one without any independent oversight.
|
|
| | | 121 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 11:02
|
One also should notice, that in Vietnam, the worst-possible scenario occurred for those who supported the war. But the long term outcome of the war had virtually none of the doomsdays that were predicted.
Conservative predictions on wars has been pretty awful. For a long time. Until they get one right I think we can safely ignore them.
|
|
| | | 122 | Boldwin
ID: 43528308
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 11:02
|
So, if liberals aren't mainstream, does that mean by definition that the "mainstream" media isn't liberal? - DWetz
When liberals admit the truth about what the ratings for Fox and CNN means, I'll also change the term I use for them.
|
|
| | | 123 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 11:51
|
So you concede that every time you have bashed the liberal mainstream media, you were just making up terms as you go along, like Humpty-Dumpty. Refreshing honesty.
|
|
| | | 124 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 12:06
|
dude, with every meal he eats, he visits this website to figure out what he's going to post next.
|
|
| | | 125 | DWetzel
ID: 278201415
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 12:41
|
You know who else tried to do that? Hitler.
|
|
| | | 126 | Razor
ID: 57854118
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 13:12
|
What's sad is that even with 40 years of hindsight, Boldwin still can't grasp the futility of the Vietnam War, nor come to grips with the fact that communism did not, in fact, proliferate as a result of leaving.
|
|
| | | 127 | Tree
ID: 248472317
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 14:33
|
he's a sniper in the trees, unaware the Vietnam war ended 35 years ago.
heck, he's still hanging on every word of the HUAC.
|
|
| | | 128 | sox, infuriated
ID: 545313014
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 15:33
|
It's funny how it only takes a post or two to remind me why I have far, far better things to do than participate in many of the discussions here.
Boldwin. Once again, your posts are little concerned with facts or any semblance of reality. As far as I can tell, your 112 is little more than an attempt at a "gotcha", as if we're keeping score or something.
There didn't need to be an "order refused" by McChrystal for the President to call him to the carpet. Did you not see the UCMJ article in 106? I put it in bold font for a reason! I opted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I get that you never served in the military, and so tried to explain that it's about accountability and the chain of command. But your steadfast refusal to understand the culture of the military is exactly that - a refusal to try to understand. Instead, you're going to ignore 230 plus years of tradition and discipline, and discount the chain of command and the culture of accountability that make the military work. Way to fit the issue to your narrow worldview.
MITH did a far better job than I could in pointing out the idiocy of your issues with Cindy Sheehan.
And as to having a CO that speaks his mind to his troops, there's a world of difference with what is said to a group of comrades in arms than in talking to a Rolling Stone reporter. Every person here has had a locker room conversation or told a joke that they wouldn't repeat in front of a spouse or child. I would have guessed that you would have understood that, but apparently those subtleties are lost on you.
And Vietnam? Really? What's next? You going to excorciate TR for breaking up Standard Oil?
|
|
| | | 129 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 16:08
|
Look up anosognosic, and you'll see baldwin's pretty mug
smiling blissfully out at you.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 43528308
Wed, Jun 30, 2010, 16:16
|
nor come to grips with the fact that communism did not, in fact, proliferate as a result of leaving. - Razor
The USA is on life support in the form of credit from communist China, Russia has eliminated their national debt and is proposing it's currency be made the world's currency, The Viet Nam War era marxists who took over the institutions in the 1960's now have their man in the White House, and you think it worked out swell.
Well you would.
|
|
| | |
| | | 132 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 37838313
Sun, Jul 25, 2010, 20:17
|
Boldwin 03.05.03: Contrary to what we have been told [President Bush] is able to chew gum and walk at the same time.
|
|
| | | 133 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 15:22
|
9 Afghan Boys Killed by Accidental NATO Strike
So many reasons why we should no longer be there. Our presence seems infinite (10 years?!?), and it's to contain whatever could happen with nukes in Pakistan's unstable gov't. We (more so they, as in Afghanistan) just cannot afford it, on so many levels.
Who has the courage to say "we are outta here."...? I wish Obama would do this. My biggest and maybe only beef with him. Maybe the tea baggers, with their libertarian bent, can start the rallying cry. It would also reduce our debt if we left.
Oy yoi yoi.
|
|
| | | 134 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 16:20
|
I'm with you walk. Unless we're gauranteed some oil or minerals, get out. I thought Obama campaigned to do that.
Some day, those drones will be pointed at us and we're not going to like it. 100,000 troops vs. 100 Al-Quaida in Afghanistan. Hugely expensive.
|
|
| | | 135 | Mith
ID: 4010542612
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 16:28
|
I thought Obama campaigned to do that.
He didn't. He promised to draw down in Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan.
|
|
| | | 136 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Mar 02, 2011, 17:21
|
Right, Obama referred to Afghanistan as the right war, or something like that. It's an endless quagmire of horror and waste.
|
|
| | |
| | | 138 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 19:18
|
Did I just miss the name of the general who thinks that target time makes any sense based on the situation?
|
|
| | | 139 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 19:45
|
How many years to the USSR waste money and lives in Afghanistan? For how many years, have we done the same?
AA (after action) report in the military, aka "lessons learned". I think it is high time, we acknowledge the lesson.
|
|
| | | 140 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 19:48
|
Is it a military or a re-election decision?
|
|
| | | 141 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 19:59
|
Like the soldiers care.
Since we're talking about mid 2013, what do you think?
|
|
| | | 142 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 20:14
|
I don't think it's even debatable until you come up with a general who thinks it makes any military sense.
|
|
| | | 143 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 20:23
|
I dont think you have a single clue as to what does or doesnt, make military sense. Go read another book, since thats as close to the military as you will ever get.
|
|
| | | 144 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 21:36
|
I don't think it's even debatable until you come up with a general who thinks it makes any military sense.
Sweet. See you in another thread, then.
|
|
| | | 145 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 08:27
|
So the plan is to have soldiers out by 2013 appears to me to be a re-election promise. Didn't Obama also promise to have soldiers out of Iraq by 2009 in the last election? That seems to be more of a re-election then military decision. Asking the same about this one is a fair question.
I'm not sure if it makes military sense. I'll leave that to the people with intel on the situation and the possible effects of the withdrawal. Regardless I'm going to hope that it was made for military reasons and even if it was for political reasons I don't think we have the will or the ability to actually make a significant change in the region militarily.
|
|
| | | 146 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 10:26
|
It was actually more of an election promise. You might recall he wanted to get out of Iraq as part of his primary and general campaign for President.
As a candidate, he also promised to go into Pakistan if they had "actionable intelligence" and take out Bin Laden. He was widely ridiculed by the Right for that one.
As for Afghanistan, from what I'm hearing (granted, these are from the soldiers on the ground) we are doing absolutely nothing of importance at this point. The Taliban are mostly gone or on the run. What few al qaeda were there are no longer--moved across the border for the most part. We have no reason to be there.
|
|
| | | 147 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 10:40
|
I should point out that many are trying to make this whole thing a question of whether, if true and handled as planned, this will help Obama. That's a real politico.com way of looking at things, and kinda sad.
Is pulling out the right thing to do? Yes. End of story, IMO. The fact that political leaders sometimes make decisions based upon their own best interests and that might have entered into this decision (we don't know for sure) to a degree (if so) that we can't determine is an exercise in political theory masturbation and self-importance.
|
|
| | | 148 | Boldwin
ID: 49030519
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 10:44
|
Is pulling out the right thing to do? Yes.
Then how hard could it be to find some presidential butt kissing careerist general to declare it's a great idea from a military POV?
|
|
| | | 149 | Frick
ID: 14082314
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 11:02
|
I agree that it probably is the right thing to do, but it is a fair question to ask if the timing has more to do with politics then reality. The same questions were asked of Bush at the end of his term when the economy was collapsing.
|
|
| | | 150 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 11:45
|
Then how hard could it be to find some presidential butt kissing careerist general to declare it's a great idea from a military POV?
Because this isn't a war. It's an occupation. A war is competing nation militaries, where victory is determined when one nation surrenders to the other poltically and militarily.
The Taliban is not a nation. It doesn't have a leader of a united Taliban that can be eliminated, or a capital city that can be captured. There are scores of Taliban cells that operate in the shadows, and some of these shadows aren't even in Afghanistan. We've been there over 10 years. We could be there another 10 years with basically the same situation.
From a military POV, the objective should be to eradicate the Taliban's ability to buy arms, to feed and shelter themselves. As long as there is an influx of Pakistanis, Saudis, Uzbeks and other foreign jihadists in the mix, that objective will a monumental task.
It's time for Afghanis to step up to the plate and provide for their own security. It's hard to know if the culture at large will embrace concepts like education for girls, when ex-pats in Canada kill their wives and daughters for being too Westernized. But no amount of military might or strategy employed by our generals, presidential butt-kissers or not, can dictate a culture that has known only war for over 30 years, and embraces a religious dogma which condemns the values that we hold dear.
|
|
| | | 151 | sarge33rd
ID: 211332319
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 13:52
|
re 148...because whether or not the General thinks it is a great, or rotten idea...is irrelevant,. The generals JOB; is to do what the president orders done. PERIOD.
|
|
| | | 152 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 17:25
|
Does this mean the surge failed or worked? You know I am not sure this even helps him politically, so at least in my opinion they are doing for exactly why they say they are.
|
|
| | | 153 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Feb 03, 2012, 18:01
|
Does this mean the surge failed or worked?
Just like with the 2009 stimulus, it depends on who you ask. What's truly ironic is that most of those who say the stimulus was a complete failure and a waste of money are the same ones who want to continue to stay in Afghanistan, regardless of the cost, both monetary and human.
|
|
| | | 154 | Tree
ID: 17039238
Sun, Mar 11, 2012, 20:51
|
US soldier kills 16 Afghans, deepening crisis
An American soldier opened fire on villagers near his base in southern Afghanistan Sunday and killed 16 civilians, according to President Hamid Karzai, who called it an "assassination" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington. Nine children and three women were among the dead.
imho, this person is obviously deranged, and no different than Malik Nadal Hasan. in many ways, this is a worse situation, because of the international implications.
|
|
| | | 155 | DWetzel
ID: 33337117
Sun, Mar 11, 2012, 21:53
|
Karzai was nice. He should have called it a terrorist attack.
|
|
| | | 156 | Tree
ID: 512141211
Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 12:17
|
this is going to get ugly, and Americans will likely die because of this.
but, it's a natural progression for people who find pissing on corpses and burning holy books acceptable. When you dehumanize someone, it becomes easier to kill them.
|
|
| | | 157 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Mar 12, 2012, 13:34
|
I would think that if anything good come out of this it will be the withdrawal of troops will probably be sped up, hopefully.
|
|
| | |
|
|