Afghanistan war

[Baba gounj]

If the real goal here is to kill the Taliban.
Then we are doing it all wrong.
My suggestion is remove all our troops then round up all the gang bangers around here and ship them over there.

[ups1990]

I saw a poll, which said that most Americans are against a build up of troops. If this administration is for ending the Afghan war, then lets bring the solders back. It's crystal clear, Obama and Congress believe we can talk our way or give a speech our way out of turmoil.

Perhaps, now I'm just saying perhaps we can have the president take an IPOD of Obama's favorite songs and give it to the insurgents. Maybe we can have a concert with Kanye West, along with left-wing artist and Hollywood actors, hold hands and make this go away.

If you are perceived as weak, people will not take you seriously.
Athletes that get into trouble point to the crowd that was around them as the problem. This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs

[The Other Side]

Originally Posted by ups1990

I saw a poll, which said that most Americans are against a build up of troops. If this administration is for ending the Afghan war, then lets bring the solders back. It's crystal clear, Obama and Congress believe we can talk our way or give a speech our way out of turmoil.

Perhaps, now I'm just saying perhaps we can have the president take an IPOD of Obama's favorite songs and give it to the insurgents. Maybe we can have a concert with Kanye West, along with left-wing artist and Hollywood actors, hold hands and make this go away.

If you are perceived as weak, people will not take you seriously.
Athletes that get into trouble point to the crowd that was around them as the problem. This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs

UPS1999,

BLAH BLAH BLAH...right wing rhetoric without saying anything.

This is the problem with you right wingers. You have nothing but rediculous criticisms and offer nothing in the alternative.

Terrific, you offered this gem "This is what I, believe is the problem with President Obama. He needs to rid himself of those are currently giving him very bad advice on domestic and foreign affairs"

Really? He has three of the top advisors that were guiding President Moron for the last few years.. What now? Were they giving Bush bad advice?

Before you post something really rediculous 1999, why not try and really educate yourself on these wars without simply repeating some lame claim from FAUX news.

Since you have pointed out that you believe he is getting bad advice on both domestic and foreign affairs, why not show us what you mean?

Where in Afghanistan is he getting bad advice and from WHO? Name them and the advice they gave.

The real problem with wars that start without a plan for ending them 1999, is that they always end up a political war. The democrats would gladly like to end this occupation (afghanistan) and save a trillion dollars, on the other hand, the republicans would rather spend a trillion dollars and put on rallys and scare americans with "terrorists" and "we could be attacked if we leave"....

This type of rhetoric and scare tactic works on the weak. Bush led us into Afghainstan with the idea of getting Osama Bin Laden. FAIL.

8 years later, we are no closer to Osama Bin Laden than we are getting an answer from AV8 on Afghanistan.

You call Obama a coward, who would rather talk then fight, or maybe you dont understand he realizes that useless soldiers deaths are not worth the effort?

This is not a country of democracy, with a goverment and uniformed soldiers. Its a tribal country, with gangs, villages and tribal leaders who's only income is that of the drug trade.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

History repeats itself: Afghanistan President Karzai portraying himself as the only candidate willing to stand up to the dictates of U.S.



From The New York Times:

A little over 24 hours after the polls closed, President Obama stepped out on the White House South Lawn last week to pronounce the Afghanistan presidential elections something of a success.

But now, as reports mount of widespread fraud in the balloting, including allegations that supporters of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, illegally stuffed ballot boxes in the south and ripped up ballots cast for his opponents, Mr. Obama’s early praise may soon come back to haunt him.

[Obama administration] officials have made no secret of their growing disenchantment with Mr. Karzai, who is viewed by the West as having so compromised himself to try to get elected — including striking deals with accused drug dealers and warlords for political gain — that he will be a hindrance to international efforts to get the country on track after the election.


As long as Karzai is working with the drug dealers in his country in order to stay in power, it doesnt matter what we do. You must first understand the complexities of the drug trade in Afghanistan to understand why we cant win this war.

In order to win a war, you must stop the ability to wage war. This costs money. As long as millions of dollars are exchanging hands daily in tribal villages, countries will continue to arm them.

Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia sell arms to the taliban. When you can stop this, then youll have your victory. Until then, you will just get your teenage neighbor killed with your rhetoric.

Next time, say something of real value that lends itself to an intelligent debate. Save the right wing whacko "slogans" for faux news.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

So AV8, answer the question, youve been put in charge, you are the "pretend" commander in chief, HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THERE?

I see we get the predictable babble from you blah, blah, right wing, blah, blah, O Reilly. You still did not answer my question.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Now wait a minute! True you aren't the scumbag-n.....I mean commander-n-chief but you are running for Congress, got elected and was a political sensation so let's think positive (maybe for you ) and pretend you got elected to top dog and you now run the show. From my POV we already defeated the gov't in power that caused our being over there and thus it's army (that may be a subjective observation even before 9/11) so now let's say for the sake of discussion, we are in the Nationbuilding phase (I do believe that to be the case anyway) so as top taxeater-n-charge, what do you need to be successful in your policy and operations in Afghanistan?

And to be fair, if you believe we are still at war fighting a gov't and it's army, same question, what do you need and what should we be doing?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts either way!

I do not think we are still at war fighting a government and it's army.

If I woke up and found myself in the position of President. Well I do not want to nation build but I do recognize that we have a responsibility to Afghanistan since we invaded them and this goes for all those that aided us in the invasion as they share in this responsibility.

First and most importantly is to help protect the civilian population. In a very public way I would fire my secretary of state. She promised she could, just based on her name and things she had done in the past, cause other people to be nice. Since other countries are still importing weapons into Afghanistan she had her chance and is now terminated. We need the state department to work with other nations to help stop this flow of weapons. We also need the state department to help advise the new government on things like setting up a legal system so I would also terminate all those employees that have refused to go when it was their turn. They would need aid in building power plants, water plants, and roads all of which take time and we are currently doing. I would try and find a way to help them develop a trade other than the drug trade.

Now we have to train an army and focus on keeping the major centers of populations as safe as possible until we can "turn" over their security to local police. I would have to draw on my experience in Iraq since this is all I have to go on. In the meantime you can constantly push out to new areas with your freshly trained military. I would avoid the take and hold principal since I do not want any permanent bases in this country and this is difficult terrain to reinforce.

We must maintain air dominance. Any sign of air defense by the enemy must be dealt with.

There are some electronic warfare measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.

There are some SOF measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.

I would maintain a degree of flexibility and not commit to any type of false public time line. These types of things take time. I believe a withdrawal can eventually happen. I also believe we can do it in a way that would not sacrifice the people of Afghanistan.

No goal can possibly be to eliminate all taliban but there had to be a response for the attacks on our Country.


Most of this is nothing new aside from my desire to not maintain any permanent base or escalate the violence.

Oh if you read the other thread about running for public you know I cannot the Repubs will not allow it and you have to have their permission to get on the ballot.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

I do not think we are still at war fighting a government and it's army.

If I woke up and found myself in the position of President. Well I do not want to nation build but I do recognize that we have a responsibility to Afghanistan since we invaded them and this goes for all those that aided us in the invasion as they share in this responsibility.

First and most importantly is to help protect the civilian population. In a very public way I would fire my secretary of state. She promised she could, just based on her name and things she had done in the past, cause other people to be nice. Since other countries are still importing weapons into Afghanistan she had her chance and is now terminated. We need the state department to work with other nations to help stop this flow of weapons. We also need the state department to help advise the new government on things like setting up a legal system so I would also terminate all those employees that have refused to go when it was their turn. They would need aid in building power plants, water plants, and roads all of which take time and we are currently doing. I would try and find a way to help them develop a trade other than the drug trade.

Now we have to train an army and focus on keeping the major centers of populations as safe as possible until we can "turn" over their security to local police. I would have to draw on my experience in Iraq since this is all I have to go on. In the meantime you can constantly push out to new areas with your freshly trained military. I would avoid the take and hold principal since I do not want any permanent bases in this country and this is difficult terrain to reinforce.

We must maintain air dominance. Any sign of air defense by the enemy must be dealt with.

There are some electronic warfare measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.

There are some SOF measures that I would continue that I will not discuss.

I would maintain a degree of flexibility and not commit to any type of false public time line. These types of things take time. I believe a withdrawal can eventually happen. I also believe we can do it in a way that would not sacrifice the people of Afghanistan.

No goal can possibly be to eliminate all taliban but there had to be a response for the attacks on our Country.


Most of this is nothing new aside from my desire to not maintain any permanent base or escalate the violence.

Oh if you read the other thread about running for public you know I cannot the Repubs will not allow it and you have to have their permission to get on the ballot.

Thanks for the response and sharing your thoughts!

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Thanks for the response and sharing your thoughts!

If you woke up in the morning and were President what would you do?

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

If you woke up in the morning and were President what would you do?

Abolish the Constitution and send everyone in Washington home.
As one might say, I'd impeach myself and everyone else with me!


As for Afghanistan, I do believe it's a resource war (just as Iraq was and just as our 1990's Balkans adventures were) and I'd expose that fact to all. And I'd expose ALL the players as I also think some of the opposing players might not be true to their cause either.

I'd end our presense there and in Iraq and obviously to explain all of that would take a lot of time and space here and if you've read my posts over a wide variety of subjects and especially the links, it's obvious just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would mean nothing if that was all you did. Both are purely effects and I'd be more interested in root causes. Thus my first paragraph as in removing all power and means of power from those who use it for their own self interests and that self interest is a very wide net for sure.

Our sitting President spoke of change and the need for transparency and I couldn't agree more. I'd bring so much transparency to gov't that you could count the hairs between Uncle Sam's legs. Unlike the democrat and republican parties, I don't believe in noble lies!

[wkmac]

BTW: The God That Failed!

And don't forget Hamilton.

[klein]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Abolish the Constitution and send everyone in Washington home.
As one might say, I'd impeach myself and everyone else with me!


As for Afghanistan, I do believe it's a resource war (just as Iraq was and just as our 1990's Balkans adventures were) and I'd expose that fact to all. And I'd expose ALL the players as I also think some of the opposing players might not be true to their cause either.

I'd end our presense there and in Iraq and obviously to explain all of that would take a lot of time and space here and if you've read my posts over a wide variety of subjects and especially the links, it's obvious just pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would mean nothing if that was all you did. Both are purely effects and I'd be more interested in root causes. Thus my first paragraph as in removing all power and means of power from those who use it for their own self interests and that self interest is a very wide net for sure.

Our sitting President spoke of change and the need for transparency and I couldn't agree more. I'd bring so much transparency to gov't that you could count the hairs between Uncle Sam's legs. Unlike the democrat and republican parties, I don't believe in noble lies!

There is a country on earth with no government.
It's called Somalia !

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

There is a country on earth with no government.
It's called Somalia !

Funny, I made no mention of effecting State or local gov't and yet you lacked critical thinking and assumed! I'm not surprised by your revelation either!

BTW: Somalia does have a gov't (A government is the body within an organization that has the authority to make and enforce rules, laws and regulations.) see government but it may be that you and myself as well don't like how that gov't exerts itself as it's not what "WE" typically think gov't is.

Actually, strip away the noble lies and it's in truth more honest. Gov't has many ways into power but mostly it's done by one of 2 ways these days for the most part. First, there's the pure democracy route which can take many illusion forms. Saddam Huissein was said by some to be elected and therefore many thought democracy but yet he controlled who ran against him for the most part. Of course we decried this control as evil and yet we ignored the fact that in this country we have the same thing but we think ourselves better because we have it divided into 2 political parties that all but control the process. 3rd parties are allowed to some degree for the sake of illusion but the wall so high they have no real chance.

The 2nd way is by pure force whether that be some type of coup or other means of violent act. Taking this route also requires a maintaining of some level of violence until opposition forces are killed or assimulated. Somalia being a good example. Also it might serve you well to study a little about the region and how the CIA and other American interests have actually profitted and promoted the problems over there while telling the masses the noble lie! Just like now where we decry the violence and so-called "anarchy" in areas of Afghanistan and yet we held to the noble lie while we backed and funded same anarchy in the 1980's when Afghanistan was under Soviet occupation. Ah, the noble lie of promoting freedom and justice from the red imperial menace!

Government exerts it's will by either brute force, threat of brute force or the subtle lie in order to gain compliance and/or obedience.
We are conditioned to the subtle lie as politicians tell us one thing to gain our vote and then act differently once elected. That's the operation of being "civilized" or in the first world. In the 3rd world, the mechanism of carrying the lie lacks to feed the masses so brute force becomes the tool of choice. Same thing really except in the first world being on the losing side your blood spilt tends to be green!

In the first world unlike the 3rd world, the warloads hide behind lobbyist and paid for politicians and use the cop and other enforcer of state sanction as the avenger of blood and protection control. The only difference between ourselves and the Somilians is our level of sophisications in hiding our own brutality of the blood of citizen slaves who dare stand up and are then bled dry for public viewing along our own Appian Way!

I often find it musing that the mircoscopic minority of folks who hold a view like or similar to mine when we voice it are so fast to raise objections from the overwhelming galactic size masses of those who in various beliefs of State would strongly disagree. As for mass appeal, it's almost as if I were saying that on the farside of the universe a comet were about to slam into a planet and yet you act as if it's about to hit here. Wonder where the fear comes from?

Relax, have a beer, kick back. You know you can easily pass me off as just pure hyperbole, troll, lunatic, BC idiot, etc. etc. What I say will have no impact at all!



And Klein, learn how definitions work and what people are actually advocating in the first place! Amazing what one can learn from etymology and to stop fearing as well! Did we ever consider if we look past the idea and concept of týrannos that something else even potentially better might emerge?

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by wkmac

.

I'd end our presense there

What I thought but how? Would you try to keep our men and women as safe as possible while doing that? Do you land 1000 aircraft at once and board in mass? Would you have any regard for the safety of the people of Afghanistan?

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

What I thought but how? Would you try to keep our men and women as safe as possible while doing that? Do you land 1000 aircraft at once and board in mass? Would you have any regard for the safety of the people of Afghanistan?

As far as I'm concerned those men and women are on their own!

If you and others have stopped bouncing off the wall now .........


Obviously it would be a protected withdrawal and it would require some amount of time for an orderly process. No I don't think 18 months either. How long and how? Give me full access to all details and force resources over there and I can give you a more precise answer bit I am thinking months and less than a year if you want specific. If it can be done safely and orderly in weeks, so much the better. You wanna stay, I wanna go. Opinions vary.

OEF from my understanding has about 29k US Troops in the eastern and southern part of the country and ISAF under NATO in and around Kabul has about the same number of US Troops assigned to a large NATO force. Allowing a protection of withdrawal and just knowing what little I do know of actual on ground facts and logisitics, I'd first withdraw all operations into Pakaistan and withdraw the OEF forces back to Kabul area for re-deployment home. Air defense and predator drones would give air cover of such operations too.

Once OEF forces were out, then I'd begin withdrawal of our ISAF forces assigned to NATO. NATO could stay if it liked but we're out. I'd then withdraw from NATO and close all global military bases with a similar like process. We're done being global policeman and also the world source of welfare payments. As for the contractors working for various bussinesses and corporations over there? They should contract their contractor HR department. They are not my problem and that comment is no joke!

I found it ironic you wanted to extend infrastructure and other support welfare (jobs program) for Afghanistan (I oppose obviously) while opposing the likes of such or anything remote to it here at home. Interesting and telling all at the same time!

They have farmers over there growing cucumbers until we blow them up and their trucks loaded with cucumbers claiming they were some type of explosive devices. Wonder what we'd say if those were cops going into an inner city mowing down innocent people as the cops claimed they we a bunch of gangbangers? Wonder what the rest of the innocent folks living in the area would think not only of the cops but the rest of us outside the area who championed the cops going in in the name of the better good!

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by wkmac

I found it ironic you wanted to extend infrastructure and other support welfare (jobs program) for Afghanistan (I oppose obviously) while opposing the likes of such or anything remote to it here at home. Interesting and telling all at the same time!

!

I feel we are bound by law. So yes it should be telling.


What if Pakistan says no to you or President Obama would you invade them anyway? Where do you plan to fly those drones from?

I have an honest curiosity since I have many libertarian friends and they sort of share your position in a way and obviously I part ways with them but they just get angry and never explain their position. I can understand how they can say they would have never gone to Afghanistan but that does not change the fact that we are there. Anyhow not trying to attack your opinion just trying to understand it.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

I feel we are bound by law. So yes it should be telling.


What if Pakistan says no to you or President Obama would you invade them anyway? Where do you plan to fly those drones from?

I have an honest curiosity since I have many libertarian friends and they sort of share your position in a way and obviously I part ways with them but they just get angry and never explain their position. I can understand how they can say they would have never gone to Afghanistan but that does not change the fact that we are there. Anyhow not trying to attack your opinion just trying to understand it.

Sorry if you misunderstood but I'd stop all operations into Pakistan not continue or increase them. Drones or other means of air cover would be used as overhead protection only of withdrawing forces. I'd withdraw all in-country operations back to the Kabul area and then withdraw all forces. I know this can't happen in 24 hours because of pure scale but all offensive operations would stop immediately. Hope that statement is more clear. Sorry for the mix up.

I can't speak for your libertarian friends because the word libertatian itself has no hard fast dogmatic meaning. There are pro war libertarians just as there are anti war, pro life and pro choice libertarians and even the issue of drugs and postitution is a mixed bag among many issues and contary to popular belief. There are leftist libertatians and even socialist libertarians.

I use the term anarchist and anarchy to assign myself to the more radical element of libertarianism who believes in the concept of "no ruler" whereas many libertarians in similar fashion to yourself in some areas are what some call "minarchists" who adopt the concept of "no ruler" only in limited areas.

I also adopt the concept of the non aggression axiom and you can google that so I won't belabor that point. Your friends "may?" adopt this principle or some aspect of it but again, you'll have to ask them. Why not ask them what they have read or are reading that helped them develop their POV.

Just a side note in case this comes up in thought. What about the nuclear threat in Pakistan? This is exactly why I've been posting all this stuff about Sibel Edmonds. When you start looking past the spin story of gov't and looking not only deeper but across a much longer span of time and how things went on say like in the 1980's for example with Charlie Wilson, you begin to realize that a lot of nefarious characters did a lot of dirty deeds to benefit themselves and still do to this day. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran did not start in 1979', 1990' or 2001'. This has all been going on for well more than a century and the only way to even get a slight hint is to study some of that history.

jmo.

Just on another side note. This afternoon I watched an interview with Rory Stewart concerning Afghanistan on Bill Moyers' Journal. Unlike me and more aligned with you, he thinks we should stay in Afghanistan and he himself is a former soldier. But he also brings up some valid points about Afghanistan and the idea of there being some type of Jeffersonian democracy in place anytime soon in that country. I think some of his points are very healthy for us to discuss publically in the public space and realize what we are up against.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by wkmac

You wanna stay, I wanna go.

, I'd first withdraw all operations into Pakaistan and !

That is what I was asking about. It looked like you just wanted to move military forces into another Country. That is how I mistook that as an invasion of another nation.


For the other part I wanna go, you wanna go we just disagree on how to make that happen.

[wkmac]

AV,

I was over at Mises and ran across this concerning Garet Garrett's 1930's early 1940's antiwar essay's placed in book form under the title, "Defend America First."

We may disagree on the how part but I don't think we disagree! Hope you find the piece worthwhile.

[wkmac]

Interesting interview that the US via USAID is funding the Taliban.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

The question was really simple, he wants YOUR idea of winning. Nothing hard to comprehend in his request.

Nice dodge though.

Now step up.

The question was very simple I wanted your idea of winning yet still no answer. Why is that? Could you not find a slogan to fit? You demanded something from me on the behalf of someone else yet you refuse to answer a simple question. For the life of me I cannot understand why one would do that.

I thought maybe you would take the easy out and copy Obama when he said this.

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,”


You could have said winning would be to "deny Al Qaeda the safe haven to organize and train".

Your lack of any type of answer could be seen as a clear indication of the lack of any type of ability to think on your own. Was that possibly a question you had not seen on any of your radical left wing blogs? Is winning a word not taught in public schools anymore?

You could have copied the dictionary entry.

"to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause"


Yet nothing when it was clearly an important enough question for you to jump in.

[The Other Side]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

The question was very simple I wanted your idea of winning yet still no answer. Why is that? Could you not find a slogan to fit? You demanded something from me on the behalf of someone else yet you refuse to answer a simple question. For the life of me I cannot understand why one would do that.

I thought maybe you would take the easy out and copy Obama when he said this.

“I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,”


You could have said winning would be to "deny Al Qaeda the safe haven to organize and train".

Your lack of any type of answer could be seen as a clear indication of the lack of any type of ability to think on your own. Was that possibly a question you had not seen on any of your radical left wing blogs? Is winning a word not taught in public schools anymore?

You could have copied the dictionary entry.

"to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause"


Yet nothing when it was clearly an important enough question for you to jump in.

AV8,

I made my position very clear already. I guess you need a reminder. I personally dont believe there is a way to WIN in Afghanistan.

I dont care if you place another 100K troops on the ground and the support to house that number, you will never be able to control the country.

The rational for this is simple. DRUGS. Until our country is ready to face the music and wipe out ALL the poppy fields in Afghanistan, we will NEVER win in Afghanistan. The billion dollar drug industry as well as the corruption of President Karzai will only lead to the deaths of hundreds of US soldiers over the next whatever years we are stuck there.

The Karzai goverment has made deals with many of the Taliban leaders in order to stay in power and those deals are the reason the country is unstable.

I as an american, am not in a position to lock in our fine young men and women to a war that is UNWINABLE just to be politically correct. I will not support staying there for another 5 years or so wasting billions of dollars and the lives of our military personnel on a treadmill of death.

There is too much influence by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, China, Yemen and even Somalia in Afghanistan. Money and weapons continue to flow into the hands of the Taliban. In the years of our occupation under BUSH, nothing was done to cut off this influence.

Today, the Taliban is larger than it was when we invaded. They are also better armed today than they were when we invaded.

When BUSH failed America by leaving less soldiers in Afghanistan than there are policemen in New York city to attack IRAQ, he gave up any strategic advange we could have had in Afghanistan.

After BUSH left Afghanistan for his failure in Iraq, the Taliban was able to regroup, rearm, retake and refund there efforts by improving relationships with countries angry with us.

That put us where we are today. There are many generals who have wrote in books this EXACT point.

Many generals involved with Afghanistan and replaced by BUSH because they advised him that going into Iraq was a mistake before finishing Afghanistan were right on the money.

So my answer is this. Give it a year, see what can be accomplish, if no progress, then pull out, take our lumps and leave that country alone to fight its own battles.

If Karzai wants to make deals with the drug industry to stay in power, then he suffers the consequences. As far as Al Qaeda, well, I dont really believe they exist anymore and have transformed into something different.

The violence in the region will not stop. Pakistan now hosts most of the radicals left in that region. We lost any advantage to get them before they fled to Pakistan. Now they can come and go into Afghanistan with impunity.

40K troops and the support network to handle that troop increase will accomplish nothing.

We are suppose to be a superpower, yet we have been held off by a third world rag tag group of desert dwellers, thats embarrassing enough for me.

I dont need another 5 years of war to be convinced that we need to get out of there.

My answer, get out, and get out while informing Karzai he'd better clean up his act and start acting like a democracy.

His recent election was "rigged" and may not hold anyway. Fraud and corruption has been discovered and this will only lead to more violence.

Time to get out.

[av8torntn]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

AV8,

I made my position very clear already. I guess you need a reminder. I personally dont believe there is a way to WIN in Afghanistan.

You asked me what I would do to win. A complicated question. I asked you to define win. A simple question. You refuse to answer. You must not know.

I did not ask you your position. I do not care. I did not ask you thought it were possible to win as you probably could guess I do not care. It is mainly because you cannot even define what you see our nations goals as or what it would even mean to win.

[klein]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

You asked me what I would do to win. A complicated question. I asked you to define win. A simple question. You refuse to answer. You must not know.

I did not ask you your position. I do not care. I did not ask you thought it were possible to win as you probably could guess I do not care. It is mainly because you cannot even define what you see our nations goals as or what it would even mean to win.

Well, I think you guys have it all wrong.
At the moment it's not about winning, but more to keep Al Queda and the Taliban in check. (not have them grow, and do major damage in worldwide terroist attacks).

Then, comes the second "win". To let Afghanis be able to control that themselves.
If poverty vanishes there (in time), and thier citizens are happy. It will eventually work, because any sort of disruption of thier new found freedom, and better lifestyle, will result in them fighting on thier own to maintain it.

[The Other Side]

Originally Posted by av8torntn

You asked me what I would do to win. A complicated question. I asked you to define win. A simple question. You refuse to answer. You must not know.

I did not ask you your position. I do not care. I did not ask you thought it were possible to win as you probably could guess I do not care. It is mainly because you cannot even define what you see our nations goals as or what it would even mean to win.

AV8,
I am having trouble understanding your logic. I am clearly saying there is NO "winning" Afghanistan.

There is no way to define what a "win" is.

There is NO military solution, there is NO political solution, there is NO logistical solution, there is NO religious solution.

Today, the Afghanistan war is purely a Political football. On the left, they want to exit the war as quickly as possible without the political fallout seeing NO light at the end of the tunnel.

On the right, they dont care about victory or the safety of our troops, they are more concerned with the political leverage they can gain making a case for failure in Afghanistan. NOT ONE republican has layed out an outline for victory in Afghanistan.

They provide the same ole same ole, more troops, more troops..blah blah blah... just like in vietnam, the same cry for more troops was given for a dozen years until it was realized that the cost of the vietnam war was going to ruin the United States infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it did anyway. The years following the war in vietnam wiped out the economy for years.

Today, Afghanistan will do the same. spending endless dollars playing politics instead of tacklng the real problems in the middle east will hurt our economy for years to come.

The problem in Afghanistan goes beyond its borders and to merely lay troops on the ground will not accomplish a thing.

All the controversy from the right has to do with 2010 elections and nothing more. If they can make Afghanistan fail by putting more troops on the ground and increasing american deaths, in 2010 they can claim the President failed to manage the war.

The problem is, that the majority of americans understand BUSH failed in Afghanistan and put us where we are.

So AV8, make sure you read this sentence clearly: THERE IS NO WINNING IN AFGHANISTAN.

Until this country is ready to take on IRAN, RUSSIA, CHINA, PAKISTAN, SOMALIA, YEMEN, SAUDI ARABIA and all the smaller muslim countries connected to Afghanistan, then this war is a waste of time.

Make no mistake AV8, this war cannot be "won".

[klein]

Originally Posted by The Other Side

AV8,
I am having trouble understanding your logic. I am clearly saying there is NO "winning" Afghanistan.

There is no way to define what a "win" is.

There is NO military solution, there is NO political solution, there is NO logistical solution, there is NO religious solution.

Today, the Afghanistan war is purely a Political football. On the left, they want to exit the war as quickly as possible without the political fallout seeing NO light at the end of the tunnel.

On the right, they dont care about victory or the safety of our troops, they are more concerned with the political leverage they can gain making a case for failure in Afghanistan. NOT ONE republican has layed out an outline for victory in Afghanistan.

They provide the same ole same ole, more troops, more troops..blah blah blah... just like in vietnam, the same cry for more troops was given for a dozen years until it was realized that the cost of the vietnam war was going to ruin the United States infrastructure.

Unfortunately, it did anyway. The years following the war in vietnam wiped out the economy for years.

Today, Afghanistan will do the same. spending endless dollars playing politics instead of tacklng the real problems in the middle east will hurt our economy for years to come.

The problem in Afghanistan goes beyond its borders and to merely lay troops on the ground will not accomplish a thing.

All the controversy from the right has to do with 2010 elections and nothing more. If they can make Afghanistan fail by putting more troops on the ground and increasing american deaths, in 2010 they can claim the President failed to manage the war.

The problem is, that the majority of americans understand BUSH failed in Afghanistan and put us where we are.

So AV8, make sure you read this sentence clearly: THERE IS NO WINNING IN AFGHANISTAN.

Until this country is ready to take on IRAN, RUSSIA, CHINA, PAKISTAN, SOMALIA, YEMEN, SAUDI ARABIA and all the smaller muslim countries connected to Afghanistan, then this war is a waste of time.

Make no mistake AV8, this war cannot be "won".

One thing you keep forgetting.
It;s not just the USA in Afghanistan !
It's a UN and Nato mission.

You can't put this to any president !
Iraq yes, but not Afghanistan.

I do realize you have now more troops then any other country, but it still is not an only American issue.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

One thing you keep forgetting.
It;s not just the USA in Afghanistan !
It's a UN and Nato mission.

You can't put this to any president !
Iraq yes, but not Afghanistan.

I do realize you have now more troops then any other country, but it still is not an only American issue.

WOW! I never knew that one day the UN and NATO on a whim decided, "let's go F' UP Afghanistan and the Taliban just for fun. I'm bored so it'll be something to do!"

Good thing we have such smart people here so I don't get off the wrong track!



Well there's always Kipling and the White Man's burden.

In Obama's case, he can always blame it on his evil half!



Sorry but I don't suffer from white guilt, I jettisoned that BS and manipulation years ago! I don't fear to call it what it is, when it is!

But then we (Obama too) like bombing brown people! Tell em' George!

YouTube - George Carlin - We Like War

YouTube - George Carlin - We Like War