Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smearcase

The decision is being pondered and pondered and pondered some more, while our troops are awaiting reinforcements, or orders to pack up and leave. A Marine from 40 miles away from me was killed over the weekend, on the second day of his second tour. Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops while the Afghan U.S. commander is being told not to request troops until they tell him to. The multiple tours are crimininal. If we want to fight multiple wars, we should support the right number of troops to do it, whatever it takes. I believe the current delay in making a decision is 100% political a** covering and has nothing to do with protecting our troops. We need large numbers of troops to win these wars (if I am not mistaken, we had 500,000 troops in VN at one point. That stirred up the protesters and the politicians because it started getting personal). I am a veteran but not an expert, but those kinds of numbers of troops means reinstituting the draft, if we are going to commit our young folks to wage these wars. Exposing the same soldiers to combat over and over, until many don't come back, while life goes on normally for the rest of us, is shameful. Personally, I believe that while we have so much equipment and so many troops in the Middle East we will never have a better shot at accomplishing what we need to do there, so long as we are committed to winning. If I were Obama, I would put an emergency measure in Congress to reinstitute the draft, and let Congress share in the heat. I realize that is radical but we need Congress and the American people to show their cards.

---

I agree with everything except one point...

"Malicki in Iraq has control of over 100,000 U.S. troops..."

What do you mean by "control"? Can Maliki order the troops into or out of combat? My understanding is that the troops are under the full command of their officers. Can Maliki break the chain of command?

Am I misunderstanding your statement? Or do you have some information that I haven't read that says that Maliki is in charge of our troops in Iraq.

In general, however, I am in complete agreement... it's time for Obama and Congress to $h!t or get off the pot in Afghanistan. We CAN accomplish the mission of eliminating the Taliban as a credible threat in Afghanistan, if we just get off the button and fight the damn war.

We have the best trained troops in world history, using the best equipment in history, and each of our troops have just about the most combat experience in history as well. There have been very few armies in history that have seen ongoing military action for 8 years with 95%+ survival rates for that period. Our soldiers have accumulated actual experience in combat that has not existed in any modern army before... or certainly not in the last half century. (Even the most experienced combat troops of WWII didn't serve for 8 years under constant combat conditions.) This experience makes them even better for their jobs than the US military of 10 years ago, which was already the best in the world.

With that level of military assets, we could accomplish the mission in Afghanistan if we wanted to.

If not, we should get out.

Elliot

I agree but would like to add too. The citizens of Afgjanistan are not interested in picking up a weapon a fighting for themselves. They want this war fought for them. In the meantime, our soldiers are not allowed to fight. They are supposed to let the ANP or the ANA, (I believe that's correct,) fight for them. My husband is deployed for the second time in two and half years, and while the Taliban sets up trap checkpoints our soldiers hunker down in their MRAPS like pu**ies and wait for the ANP to handle the situation. Instead of allowing our soldiers to fight and handle their business, our government wants to play paddicake with terrorists. You will never win a war that way. NEVER! Meanwhile, our brave young men are dying.

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

This war is just putting the U.S. deeper into debt and is not accomplishing anything useful. Bring the troops home.

---

Earl,

Does that mean that if they WERE accomplishing something that you would be in favor of staying? If our troops were allowed to do their jobs and were given the assets needed to do their jobs, would you be OK with letting them do so?

I am not challenging you, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Elliot

POTUS is going to cut and run as soon as he can make it look like it is not cut and run. What he doesn't want is Code Pinko and Cindy Sheehad rallies on the Mall in front of the WH protesting against him.

How he wants to do this is becoming evident. McCrystal will be overruled by Sec Def Gates . The rest was revealed by Laura Rozen in Politico . Les Gelb of the CFR agrees that POTUS has no patients for the McCrystal plan and says the President should pay off elements of the Taliban to give us cover .

Quote:

---

What should the U.S. do then? “We have to do a lot of different things, including rent and deal with the Taliban,” Gelb said. “We can rent a whole bunch of Taliban fighters, and pull away some of the leadership, by allowing them to go back and exercise power in Pashtun territory. And by the time you finish that, and do it well, it will have weakened the Taliban.”

---

Wise men advice to Obama's war council - Laura Rozen - POLITICO.com

Beyond that ;the President will adopt the Biden counter-terrorism strategy; [which stripped of veneer is similar to the Clintoon strategery of lobbing bombs from a safe distance and pretending to be a CIC], over the McCrystal counterinsurgency and claim he will "get "Bin Laden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

POTUS is going to cut and run

---

Hello again, tom:

Cutting and running is a GOOD strategy when you realize that the only way to possisbly win is to institute a draft and ship a HALF MILLION or MORE of our fighting men and women over there.. In fact, it's an extremely GOOD strategy when you realize the country won't go along with it.

It WOULD be a good idea for Obama to re-enforce exactly what we're going to WIN if we do stay, because it's not clear to me anymore. Oh, yeah, way back then, before we started what is SOON to become our LONGEST war in history, it made some sense... But, the dufus screwed it up soooooooooooo bad, especially when he DIDN'T get Bin Laden when he COULD have, that it makes NO sense to stay.

One thing Obama isn't, is dumb.

excon

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..."

Obviously the guy doesn't really stand for much of anything except compromise, apologizing for America, punishing our allies and appeasing dictators.

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .

Quote:

---

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice

---

The funny thing is that is exactly what Ex just criticized President Bush for doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So Obama wants to outsource his war of choice and handle our part from a safe distance while blathering about the need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al- Qaeda, prevent it from having a safe haven..."

---

Hello again, Steve:

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan. We had NO clear strategy when we went in, so it's no wonder we're floundering now. The war, like Iraq, has evolved into an insurgency - which has the support of the people - and that's NOT a war we'll EVER win..

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

excon

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I believe McCrystal when he says 30-40,000 will do the trick .

---

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to convince you, Steve or tom. I know you're WILLING to send in our boys and girls. You were willing to send 'em to Iraq. You were willing to send 'em to Afghanistan. And, you're going to be willing to send 'em to Iran..

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

---

Yeah yeah ;I know... the wrong war is whatever war that is being fought. To briefly reply to your personal attack;I have family members in the military .As far as "sending them "... my daughter is an adult quite capable of making her own choices.

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.

Quote:

---

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops?? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama?? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

---

Nope . I'm saying that when the strategy of Vietnamization and counterinsurgency was implemented in Vietnam the war was well on it's way to being won. That is until the Democrats decided to cut the rug from under the program by ending the financing of the plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Psssst.. Here's a secret. Al Quaida isn't in Afghanistan any more. They're in Pakistan.

---

That's a secret? Is the Taliban still in Afghanistan?

Quote:

---

The only thing your NOT willing to do, is send in YOUR OWN FAMILY.

---

That's quite an unfounded insult.

Quote:

---

PS> By the way, you're willing to BORROW from our GRANDCHILDREN to fight your wars too. So, of course, all the rhetoric about Democrat spending is a lot of hooey, isn't it? I KNOW who you guys are.

---

This is now Obama's war of choice, he has to own it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You want to be angry at something ;try being angry at Obama who pretended to support their mission during the campaign for political expediency.

---

Hello again, tom:

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

The problem you guys got is, it doesn't matter WHAT changes occur on the ground, you've got this misguided belief that we can't leave because it somehow dishonors the dead soldiers... So, you're willing to risk MORE dead soldiers in the name of HONORING those already dead? Makes no sense to me.

In the Vietnam era, we HAD discussions like THIS one, when our casualty's numbered around 5,000 dead soldiers... Then, because we listened to people like you, another 50,000 or our young men were slaughtered... Lot's of honor there, all right...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

We ALL supported the mission in the beginning. But, when there was no effort to WIN, our capital was SPENT, and it's time to go.

---

I certainly don't support a half-a$$ed effort, which is what this President seems hellbent on doing in spite of his bravado on the campaign tail.

Quote:

---

“It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops. That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.”

---

Quote:

---

"The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism"

---

Quote:

---

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq."

---

Just words?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.".... Just words?

---

Hello again, Steve:

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

THAT is NOT a good result... But, at this point in time, considering ALL the facts on the ground, as they are TODAY, is THIS the time to commit the troops we SHOULD have committed back then?? I don't think so.

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Not at all. He's saying the SAME thing I'm saying. We FAILED 8 years ago. THAT failure caused the Taliban to REINFILTRATE the country, and pretty much take it ALL BACK.

---

And his other point was he was going to get the job done. Just words?

Quote:

---

I'm NOT an incrementalist when it comes to war. If you recall, MY take back then was to go ALL IN. We DIDN'T and because we didn't, we FAILED. These things DO matter.

---

I think I said I'm not for a half-a$$ed effort. Git 'er done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello tom:

You're not saying, are you, that the Vietnam war STARTED with 500,000 troops??? You don't think Westmorland said the same thing to Johnson that McCrystal is saying to Obama??? You poor righty's don't have much of a memory, do you?

excon

---

Funny thing about Vietnam, excon. We won every single battle, but lost the war anyway.

The issue in Vietnam wasn't a lack of troops. In fact, we had TOO LARGE a troop presence in Vietnam. Our troops were practically stepping on each others' heels. The issue in Vietnam was a lack of willingness to press home the battle to the point of victory.

That is the same question we are facing in Afghanistan. IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war, the 40-50,000 more troops will be enough to do the job. However, if we are unwilling to do so, then 500,000 won't be enough.

We don't need to institute a draft to win in Afghanistan any more than we needed one in Iraq. What we need is the conviction to win. If we have that, then an additional 40,000 added to the approximately 60,000 that we currently have there now (30,000 in Operation Enduring Freedom and 30,000 in the ISAF) will be enough to accomplish the job. If we don't have that conviction, no number of troops will be enough to win and we ought to leave. Either way, a draft is unnecessary.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

IF we are willing to press home the attack and win the war

---

Win what? I don't know what "win" means in this "war."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Win what? I don't know what "win" means in this "war."

---

That's because you haven't been paying attention.

"Win" in the military sense means that we created a situation in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer a viable threat to the security and survival of Afghanistan or American assets in Afghanistan. It also means that Afghanistan becomes a place from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can not launch, support or aid terrorism or terrorist attacks, especially those against the USA.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

That's because you haven't been paying attention.

"Win" in the military sense means that we created a situation in which the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no longer a viable threat to the security and survival of Afghanistan or American assets in Afghanistan. It also means that Afghanistan becomes a place from which Al Qaeda and the Taliban can not launch, support or aid terrorism or terrorist attacks, especially those against the USA.

Elliot

---

We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible. Afghanistan is too big and too much of a wilderness with too many unfriendly and uncooperative tribes to monitor every inch of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible.

---

And I bet you probably think talking to Ahmadinejad will convince Iran to end their nuclear program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

We will never win no matter how long we stay there. We think with our Western brain that we will win, but it's not possible.

---

Actually, considering that I used to live in the Middle East, I think I have a better understanding of the Middle Eastern mind than you do. It is from that perspective that I say that if we leave, we lose.

From the perspective of the Arab, if we leave it is because we are either too weak or too decadent to fight, which is just another form of weakness. Weakness is something to be exploited. Weakness is an invitation to attack. Therefore, leaving would be perceived as an invitation to attack us again here as they did at 9/11.

Between 1987 and 2007, Israel made several attempts to "leave" the West Bank and Gaza. They had unilateral troop removals. They had peace accords. They had agreements. They even dismantled cities and forcably removed their own citizens from Gaza and the West Bank. The result of every single one of those attempts was increase violence by the Palestinians... more suicide bombings, more missile and mortar attacks, etc. The Palestinians were EMBOLDENED by attempts by Israel to avoid war. They viewed it as a statement by Israel that they were not willing to stand and fight, that they were too weak.

By contrast, when the Israeli military took action... when they raided Palestinian villages to take out known terrorists, when they destroyed the homes of terrorists, when they took strong military action, the Palestianians DECREASED the number of attacks against Israel.

The contrast is shocking... and very contrary to the "civilized" western mindset. But the incidence of terrorist attacks can be plotted on a graph, and the correlation between strong action by the Israeli military and a DECREASE can be easily demonstrated.

The same is true in virtually every Islamic country. The fundamentalist activity in any Islamic country INCREASES when people are trying to "talk" and avoid conflict or violence. It dramatically DECREASES when there are signs that someone is getting ready to, or when somebody actually does, take strong military action against the fundametalist elements.

Ahmadinejad of Iran is a perfect example of this. Under George Bush, we heard very little from him about his Holocaust denial or his desire to wipe Israel off the map or his "demand" to be allowed to set up a nuclear weapons program. He was relatively quiet when Bush was in office because he knew that Bush wouldn't blink twice at bombing his a$$. Oh, he made some occasional noises, but he was definitely NOT as bold as he is today... under a President who wants to "talk" and who's goal is to unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal. Since Obama took office, Ahmadinejad has made quite a few speaches denouncing Israel and swearing again to wipe them off the map, denouncing the Holocaust as a fraud, and has tested several different types of long-range missiles, as well as continuing and expanding his nuclear weapons program. That's because he knows that Obama won't do anything to stop him.

I could give lots of historical examples from Middle Eastern History since the 12th Century where this was true. Attempts at "peace" are not honored by the Arab, they are seen as weakness and are almost ALWAYS responded to by attack.

The bottom line is that you do not understand the Middle Eastern mind.

Leaving Afghanistan may be the correct thing to do for OUR OWN reasons. But don't ever think that it is the way to decrease attacks coming from the Middle East. It will, in fact, result in the exact opposite... an increase in attacks coming from the Middle East.

Only by being strong THERE can we be relatively secure here.

As for winning in Afghanistan, it CAN be done. People like to claim that nobody has ever been able to defeat the natives in the mountains, but that simply isn't true. The Mongols did it in the 13th century. The Hotaki Empire did it in the early 1700s. So did the Durrani Empire in the late 1700s. The Sikhs nearly did it again 100 years later. It has been done, and it CAN be done again. Especially when you consider that our soldiers are better trained, better educated, better equipped, and are in better physical shape than the soldiers of any other army in history... including the armies that accomplished these victories in the past.

So the argument that "we can't win in the Afghani mountains" is pure crap.

The Russians couldn't do it because they were poorly trained and poorly equipped and their leadership had no stomach for a fight and didn't send the proper resources to do the job. Instead, they made the mistake of maintaining a troop presence there without committing to winning the fight... kind of like Obama is doing now. With the Soviet system near bankruptcy, their war in Afghanistan became a huge drain on their economic resources... kind of like Obama is doing to us now. They also had to contend with the fact that WE were helping fund, equip and train the Mujahadeen, which was a factor that the Russians could not overcome without the proper assets in place. But with the right mindset and the proper allocation of assets, the Russians could have won the war, even with our interference.

As could we, if we are willing to allocate the proper resources and manpower and are willing to actually use the appropriate ROE.

The Afghani mountains are no insurmountable obstacle, and they do not make Afghanistan or the Taliban unbeatable. Don't fall for that boogeyman story. It just isn't true.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The Afghani mountains are no insurmountable obstacle, and they do not make Afghanistan or the Taliban unbeatable. Don't fall for that boogeyman story. It just isn't true.

---

Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks. That's why we cannot win. It has no location except in someone's head and heart. Even if we killed every resident of Afghanistan, we would not defeat terrorism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks. That's why we cannot win. It has no location except in someone's head and heart. Even if we killed every resident of Afghanistan, we would not defeat terrorism.

---

You have just made Elliot's point. The problem is that getting Pashtans and Arabs to open their hearts and heads has always, since Suleman's time, been with your foot on their necks. They will not respect you enough to listen otherwise.
Further evidence can be found in any schoolyard. 13 year old American males have the same barbaric mindset. Sometimes Americans grow up. It's a shame grown up Americans so seldom enter politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

You have just made Elliot's point. The problem is that getting Pashtans and Arabs to open their hearts and heads has always, since Suleman's time, been with your foot on their necks. They will not respect you enough to listen otherwise.
Further evidence can be found in any schoolyard. 13 year old American males have the same barbaric mindset. Sometimes Americans grow up. It's a shame grown up Americans so seldom enter politics.

---

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

---

Basically, why not? Tell us how else you deal with a group of people that think blowing themselves to smithereens to kill a few Jews and other infidels is a good and honorable thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Basically, why not? Tell us how else you deal with a group of people that think blowing themselves to smithereens to kill a few Jews and other infidels is a good and honorable thing?

---

The males are the ones who think that way, so let's get rid of them. The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

---

Not "Eastern," barbaric is what I said. Most societies that have not developed above tribalism, like 13 year old boys, only respect those with demonstrated physical superiority. I admit to a trace of it, and a glow-in-the-dark Hindu Kush wouldn't bother me at all.

Killing them all, however, seems a little extreme. Enough to demonstrate our physical superiority so they'll negotiate in good faith, which their culture considers foolish to do with a weak or decadent opponent, we should do.

Quote:

---

Just words?

---

Apparently so . The President has been advised by his commander on the ground that a new strategy involving more troops is needed. This is not the same as Vietnam where Gen. Westmoreland continuously asked for additional troops without recommending a new strategy. The military learned the lesson of Westmoreland's legacy ,and General McCrystal by all accounts is one of the best in the ranks. His performance in Iraq with the capture of Saddam and the hunting down of Zarqawi by his Joint Special Operations task force demonstrated it.

Unlike Westmoreland he will not commit additional troops to a plan that will not succeed . He would resign first. He will also most likely step down if his request is denied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Not "Eastern," barbaric is what I said. Most societies that have not developed above tribalism, like 13 year old boys, only respect those with demonstrated physical superiority. I admit to a trace of it, and a glow-in-the-dark Hindu Kush wouldn't bother me at all.

Killing them all, however, seems a little extreme. Enough to demonstrate our physical superiority so they'll negotiate in good faith, which their culture considers foolish to do with a weak or decadent opponent, we should do.

---

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach. You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose, you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach. You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose, you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

---

Are you claiming to speak for a billion people spread across half the globe? The Muslim world is far vaster than the Arab, Pashtun, and Farsi speaking corner this discussion has been about.

I admitted to a trace of barbarism. I have lost friends to jihadists, and feel my anger and lust for vengeance is justified, but I do not let it rule me.

Your assuming generalities from specifics may prolong the argument, but will not win the debate.

The left often has trouble defining winning .I don't know... Perhaps it's the education system that discourages such concepts as winning and losing .

Anyway ;General McCrystal gave an answer good enough for me when he spoke to an audience at the International 'Institute for Strategic Studies'. He said when asked if he could support Biden's scale back plan :
“The short answer is: no,” ...“You have to navigate from where you are, not where you wish to be. A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
International Institute for Strategic Studies Watch the Address

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...tan_98537.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/wo...pagewanted=all

Hard to tell what the President will do . Harry Reid gave him cover by delaying Gen. McCrystal's testimony before the Senate until the President returns from buying booze and hookers for IOC committee members .
You see... the Olympics are fun... Afghanistan seems too much like work .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The males are the ones who think that way, so let's get rid of them. The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

---

Female Suicide Bombers

Quote:

---

The females just want a home and children and food and a roof over their heads.

---

Interesting take. Back in the 1990s when the Taliban was in power the faux outrage by the left about the treatment of the Afghani women by them certainly made me believe that they would be happy steps were taken to remove them from power never to return .
But ;I guess I was wrong about that and their defense of the rapist sodomizer Polanski also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Thanks for the put-downs and the lecture.

Terrorism is not something that can be defeated with guns and tanks.

---

Really?

I have never seen a dead terrorist set off a bomb, activate a suicide vest, or blow up a bus full of kids. Have you?

Having actually served in a military that was fighting terrorists LONG BEFORE 9/11, I can tell you for a certainty that dead terrorists can't kill anyone. The technique works quite well, actually.

However, what has failed repeatedly is the idea that "we can't win, no matter what we do, so we shouldn't bother."

Tell me, do you think that we should stop having cops because "we can never defeat crime... criminals have no location, criminal behavior exists in the hearts of the people"? The argument is exactly the same. Do we give up on fighting crime?

It is a foolish argument that fails every time.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So the fact that they have an "Eastern mindset" gives us permission to go in there and kill 'em all since they are all bullies and barbarians anyway? Kill them before they kill us?

---

Nope. Just the ones trying to torture, rape, blow up and murder people in the name of Allah.

And you object to this why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So what you are saying is the way to deal with the Muslim world is to nuke them and you have no objection to this approach.

---

Again, you are bringing up nukes. Why do you keep doing that?

The discussion in this thread, from the very beginning, has been about sending more ground troops and appropriate support, not nuking anyone.

Quote:

---

You fail to realise that you have the same mindset as the terrorist you oppose,

---

Really?

Do you really think that we're in favor of raping, torturing, murdering and blowing up people because they don't follow the correct religious practices? Is that the mindset that you think we have? Because that is the mindset of the terrorists.

Quote:

---

you are completely immature, even more so than those thirteen year old boys you dispise so much. It is no wonder the US has such great difficulty dealing with the rest of the world if this is the mindset of their people. Gunboat diplomacy never worked and is the reason the world is in the mess it is.

---

Actually, gunboat diplomacy has nevger FAILED. It ALWAYS works if you are willing to use the guns on the gunboat and have bigger, better and more gunboats than the other guy does.

Where it fails (and where it failed in Vietnam) is when you are NOT willing to use the guns on the gunboat. And when that happens, the enemy will believe that they can get away with anything because you aren't going to use the guns. The proper response to this is a judicious but firm use the guns to prove that if pushed too far you will indeed use the guns.

Quote:

---

You are correct in saying that the Muslim don't respect you because you are decadent, they realise your word cannot be trusted, that you are their friend only so long as it suits you.

---

Yep... thanks to Obama they know that to be true now. After he threw his allies, Israel, Honduras, Poland and the Chek Republic under the bus, the rest of the world does indeed see that America can't be trusted to honor a commitment to an ally AND that we are too weak-minded to defend ourselves with force.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The left often has trouble defining winning

---

So what to you would mean a win?