All the republicans criticizing Obama’s giving of a drawback date are retarded. In business you ALWAYS set a deadline or else there is no impetus for the other side to make progress quickly. The setter of the deadline can always push it forward if need be… do they really think if we haven’t accomplished our goals, …but things are going well… that we’ll just pull out?
Man, they really are just a bunch of disagreeable SOBs. They get exactly what they want and still bitch. Almost as bad is the far left criticizing this plan.
America has to take responsibility for this war and that means seeing it through so that the job is done right. These people have always been abandoned, invaded, and used in the past. It’s time to give them the future we offered to them. I’ll admit that I have my doubts on whether or not this can even be accomplished but we at least have to give our best effort. We walk away now and leave a power vacuum for Al Queda or the Taliban to take over. Then a few years down the road they initiate another terrorist attack against the US. I bet we’ll just be slapping ourselves upside the head for that one.
Damn straight. America needs to be focused on building infrastructure here, schools, economic opportunities, hospitals. Win hearts and minds, give the Afghanis some reason to prefer the yanks over the Taliban or the Russkies, some reason to desire US protection. The military is important, but really should be focusing on providing security for rebuilding. It’s the only way to win the war; and it’s the only way to achieve a long term positive outcome.
[quote]If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to fight in San Francisco.[/quote]-- President Lyndon Johnson
[quote]We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.[/quote]–Ronald Reagan, 1964
Right you are. But I think the military should do the rebuilding, not crooks like KBR (Haliburton) and the like.
Give the Seabees and the Army engineers some building materials and get out of their way. These guys and gals are some CANDO types that could do the job quickly, and efficiently. And they won’t be electrocuting the troops like Cheney’s bunch of fucktards from KBR.
1 billion or so spent now, would save much more money and lives in the future.
Mmm. I would much prefer if the Afghanis can do it themselves, as it can be done MUCH cheaper, and also it’s giving locals jobs, and that’s very important for the impoverished war ravaged country. Only problem is the corruption… Still could be done though if they find the right people.
Obama continues the agenda after his campaign lies that he will end all conflicts the US are involved in.
The reason the US and others are there is because of business interests.
The military Industrial Complex which dictates Obama’s administration are rubbing their hands with glee with this modern day Vietnam which has been running longer than WW2. More profits.
War is a racket as Smedley Butler so truthfully exposed in the last century.
As I said in 2001 with many others, the ‘war’ in Afghanistan is unwinable. Just like the Brits couldn’t win there hundreds of years ago and the Russians couldn’t defeat the then ‘freedom fighters’ (now terrorists).
But business wins so it’s treble JDs on the rocks at Dick Cheney’s country club while body bags with ‘dumb stupid animals’ as Kissinger called the military, continue to pile up.
Several Dems in congress have voiced good reasons not to.[quote]Our occupation fuels a Taliban insurgency. The more troops we send, the more resistance we meet… The people of Afghanistan don’t want to be saved by us… They want to be saved from us. Our presence and our Predator drones kill countless innocents, creating more US enemies and destabilizing Pakistan.
(source)[/quote][quote]“It’s an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy.”
…
“An escalation of the war in Afghanistan at a time of [domestic] economic dislocation and hardship raises questions about America’s priorities and whether or not we are losing our way as we attempt to stride aside the globe as some Colossus.”
… i[/i] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said recently that Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was an “unworthy partner” whose country does not warrant additional US aid, indicated she supported Obama’s plan.
(source)[/quote]
Does anyone know how these politicians consider a timetable of 18 months to draw back ‘some’ forces assures any greater ‘victory’ - less quagmire than we’ve got now?
Of course actual servicemen and women are trained to follow, not debate, so the fog of why we’re there and what we’re still expecting to gain remains questionable on the Hill as well as across millions of kitchen tables.
Although he’s an unlikely spokesman, recently on Larry King Live, Jesse Ventura offered a mouthful:[quote]“Its too easy for these people take our young men and women to war and not account for it. And let’s pass one more law, Larry. The next time the government votes to go to war, I think every congressman and senator should be required to predesignate someone in their family, begins immediate military service. Because I’m tired of these people voting to go to war, and then they have no dog in the fight.”
(source)[/quote]Wouldn’t that have been grand to have had such an anti-chickenhawk law in place prior!
[quote=“ice raven”]Mmm. I would much prefer if the Afghanis can do it themselves, as it can be done MUCH cheaper, and also it’s giving locals jobs, and that’s very important for the impoverished war ravaged country. Only problem is the corruption… Still could be done though if they find the right people.
[/quote]
Ice Raven, you have claimed in the past to be privy to a lot of information not revealed in the mainstream media. So please, tell me, who are these “right people”, and how does the alternative media you get your opinion fodder from recommend that those not in the know as yourself can identify them?
As I said in 2001 with many others, the ‘war’ in Afghanistan is unwinable. Just like the Brits couldn’t win there hundreds of years ago and the Russians couldn’t defeat the then ‘freedom fighters’ (now terrorists).
quote]
I couldn’t agree more. The war with America was winable in 1492 and in the 1600s and it will always be winable.
USA. You lost in Vietnam, You lost in 1492. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And Cake, Bush has been out of office for nearly a year now. Is it time to replace his picture with one of Obama yet, or are you so in love with Georgie that you can’t let him go?
I recommend these
Obama Acid. Because the only explanation for why we thought that Obama wouldn’t be exactly like Bush is that we were all trippin.
[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]
Ice Raven, you have claimed in the past to be privy to a lot of information not revealed in the mainstream media. [/quote]
I’ve never claimed any such thing. What the hell are you talking about?
“Alternative media?” Again, what the hell are you talking about? So basically you come in here, with undeserved personal attacks straight off the bat, having said nothing useful nor contributing to the discussion?
I hear this a lot from the left. Apparently people weren’t paying attention. Obama has always taken a hawkish approach towards the war in Afghanistan, including during the campaign. He sent 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan almost immediately after taking office. This surge isn’t a surprise or an inconsistency.
I don’t understand why Americans cling to the delusion that they can use military force to surgically transform societies with fundamentally hostile, antagonistic values into docile friends. It’s like trying to use a hammer and saw to perform surgery.
If America wants to transform Afghanistan it needs to annihilate it and rebuild it from the ground up as it did in Japan and Germany and then prepare to occupy it in force for the next half century to make sure the transformation sticks. If it wants to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan it needs to put the guns away and put its own hearts and minds on the table in return but it’s clearly not willing to do that because of its black and white view of the conflict.
It appears that America learned absolutely nothing useful in Vietnam so it’s off to the woodshed again.
Assuming that we have the choice. We are going to be committed for a long time. This is not a bad thing. It will, however, be a challenging one. Do we want to see the Taliban back in Afghanistan? And we are not the Soviets. I think that eventually this will work out… will it be perfect? No, but … we have much to contribute and we need to be there. Obama has done a fine and responsible thing. A lot of private negotiating and posturing has gone on. Let’s not forget to understand that not everything that is reported is as it appears. I support Obama on this 100%. He has approached this with great insight, thought and strategic understanding. That does not mean that it is any less difficult. It is a hard choice. He has made the right one. There will be setbacks. I think that he understands that all too well…
[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]
USA. You lost in Vietnam, You lost in 1492. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]
I didn’t know there even WAS a USA in 1492.
What exactly is “this”? The best I can figure out is “this” is that General McChrystal is going to surgically remove all the bad guys from Afghan society for the first time in the history of that country, leaving behind nothing but a population of docile, pro-Western darkies who are okay with the fact that little Mohammed, grandma and mom all became casualties because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. All this in eighteen months time. And Islam, the root of all this evil of course, is going to be drained from Afghan society somehow and replaced by a secular, watered-down version so we don’t just find ourselves back in this same situation twenty years from now when a new crop of jihadis spring up from the swamp.
Would this be a fair interpretation of “this” or do you have a better interpretation you might share with us?
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]
USA. You lost in Vietnam, You lost in 1492. The more things change, the more they stay the same.[/quote]
I didn’t know there even WAS a USA in 1492.[/quote]
That’s because there wasn’t. There were groups of native Americans fighting with each other. Nor was an “America” in the 1600’s unless you want to count the Jamestown colony. Chuanzao is off by a couple of hundred years.
Just yesterday in Dobbs’ slot on CNN, Afghanistan Policy “Debate” on CNN Tonight - All three panelists had some interesting points. The aussie journalist Michael Ware sure had some ‘in-your-face’ words to offer.[quote=“Michael Ware said, not”]A win for the U.S. is leaving behind some kind of functioning state, whether it’s recognizable to us or not, that could at least hold itself together in some fashion, prevent sanctuary to al Qaeda and you can walk away. Bottom line, America did not go there to save Afghan women, to educate Afghan children. America was tacitly accepting the existence of the Taliban government until al Qaeda came to strike. America’s interest is simply denying sanctuary. You achieve that? Go home.[/quote]Bitter medicine perhaps.
[quote=“fred smith”]We are going to be committed for a long time. This is not a bad thing…And we are not the Soviets.[/quote]Soviet style intel gleaning or soviet style electorate/appointment process? Many Americans question both. How is one to think America benefits (public not profiteers) from long-term occupation of Afghanistan? Any better than previous occupiers?
Intriguingly short article… Why Should We Get Out of Afghanistan? Because Imperialism Is a Fool’s Game alternet.org/world/144318/wh … ool’s_game[quote]The Russians were tough. The Russians were ruthless. They carpet-bombed, bulldozed, and planted land mines. Over 1,000,000 Afghans died, 1,200,000 were disabled, 3,000,000 were maimed or wounded, and 5,000,000 fled the country.
…
-Estimated number of Al Qaeda members now operating in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. national security advisor: 100
-Number of U.S. troops who would be stationed there if General Stanley McChrystal’s leaked request were granted: 120,000
–Harper’s Index, November 2009[/quote]
I will never understand why people argue about things they have no direct knowledge of. You can all speculate as much as you want, dig deep and wide for articles that support your argument, but more likely than not none of us knows for sure just what is going on down there. That goes ditto for the Vietnam/Russia comparisons… this is not 40 years ago and this is not the same tactics employed by the Soviet Union.
So let’s just say that just maybe Obama is telling the genuine truth in his outlined plan for Afghanistan an debate the big picture instead of calling up obscue figures and cries of ulterior motives. That old horse was kicked around enough for the Iraq war.
