Great history lesson and well said, tom.
|
Great history lesson and well said, tom.
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It WAS a great history lesson, and we need to pay attention to history... But, here's what you can't do. You can't draw a straight line from the time tom is talking about, directly to today... There's some history in between that you need to pay attention to, too. But, you guys only like the history that you like..
Here's some you don't like...
Assuming what tom says is true, we DIDN'T believe that 9 years ago when we kind of danced into Afghanistan... We didn't believe it when we called a time out, so we could have a war with Iraq... We didn't believe it, when the dufus let Bin Laden get away...
So, in terms of our war strategy TODAY, you cannot forget our RECENT history in that war... IF you do, I remind you that the American public has NOT. That is where we find ourselves today.
So, no matter what we SHOULD have done from the get go, we DIDN'T. I don't know how many chances the public should give the military to get it right. And, I don't know how many chances the military should ask for.
excon
Ummmm... Clete... you are aware that Mullah Omar's daughter is married to bin Laden's son, aren't you? The two groups are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yes... it would have been absurd to attack one of the few governments on Earth that has been aggressively fighting against terrorists and terrorism since Sadat was assassinated.Quote:
There were no Afghani in the 9/11 squad, they were Eqyptians, etc. Why didn't the US attack Egypt? Because it would have been absurd and your argument is absurd.
Actually, only Mohammed Atta was Egyptian. Of the 19 terrorists who hijacked the airplanes that day, 15 were Saudi Arabian, one was Egyptian, one was Lebanese and two were from the UAE. So your statement is FACTUALLY incorrect.
Furthermore, unlike all those other countries, Afghanistan actually FUNDED the attacks and they received their training in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was bin Laden, who was being hidden by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's deputies, was the money-man behind the attacks. He too was hidden and protected by the Taliban. KSM, who is acknowledged as the "architect" of 9/11, was in hiding in Afghanistan before and after the attacks, protected by the Taliban. Only after the Taliban were forced out of power did he leave Afghanistan and go to Pakistan where he was captured. Afghanistan was where the attacks were planned, the staging point for the attacks, the money source for the attacks and the place where the attackers trained.
So... according to you, if the USA had not helped the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets, there never would have been a Taliban.Quote:
Bush attacked Afghanistan to remove Al Qaeda and it had the effect of removing the Taliban from power, fair enough. The US created the Taliban by aiding a jihadist group to gain military power because it suited them.
Bull.
Fact is that the Taliban actually came into power to fight AGAINST the Mujahadeen warlords (which we supported) that had gone from fighting the Soviets to fighting against each other when the Soviets had pulled out. The warlords had become corrupt, brutal and power hungry and the Taliban, formed by Mullah Omar, was created to fight against the corruption, brutality and power-madness. Unfortunately, they too became corrupt, brutal and power-hungry. But the bottom line is that they weren't a creation of the USA... they were fighting against the warlords that we put into power.
You're right. We can't change their minds. We can't win their hearts. We should stop trying to do so, and just kill the SOBs. And with the right number of troops and the right assets, we can.Quote:
Once again the snake has bit the hand that fed it. The Taliban has now been turned into a terrorist group because they have embraced the tactics of the jihadists. The Pustun may not be all Taliban but they have sympathy with the religious views, this is why you will not change their thinking and certainly not by "protecting" them from their own people. You cannot protect a Muslim from Islam, it is an absurd idea but that is in fact what is being tried in Afghanistan.
Unless you suggest that we cut Afghanistan off by putting a fence around the country and not letting anyone in or out, your tactic is doomed to failure. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are one and the same. They BOTH are looking for the destruction of the USA. If even ONE PERSON can leave Afghanistan, then Afghanistan has the potential to send terrorists to the USA to attack us... as they did on 9/11. Which means that the only solution to stop such an attack is to stop it at the SOURCE... IN AFGHANISTAN.Quote:
The US losses nothing but international "prestige" by leaving Afghanistan. The Afghan people will cheer for a day and go back to their sixth rate lives in a tenth rate country. In fifty years they may once again begin to emerge but only if they are left alone to work it out for themselves and not spend another generation fighting.
THERE it is... I've been waiting for it. The typical liberal call of "blame the victim".Quote:
My logic is that what goes around comes around and the US has reaped what it has sown. Those targeted on 9/11 in the World Trade Centre were not the people responsible for US policy. Collateral damage as they say, but the US foreign policy caused the backlash that was 9/11. Think about the targets of the 9/11 attacks. The US government was being attacked, its financial systems were being attacked, its hold on the world was being attacked, a surgical strike, cut off the head of the snake, that was Bin Laden's strategy
The evil USA, which has spent more money and more resources than any other country to heal people, help people and feed people all over the world at its own expense, is so demonic that it DESERVED to be attacked by a bunch of religious zealots on September 11, 2001.
How dare we act to save Afghanistan from invasion by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. We should be ashamed of ourselves for actually responding to the calls for help from the Afghani people, AND getting out of the area when their war against the Soviets was over. How evil we are. For shame... We DESERVED to be punished for helping Afghanistan retain its independence from the Soviet Union.
And you call that "logic"?
Elliot
I don't have any doubts about our military being able to do the job, I don't think most Americans do either. The politics are another story.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Of course I use historical reference for illustration and not to create "straight-line comparison. If I was going to talk about the last 8 years in Afghanistan I would have course mention comparisons to other wartime decisions that did not go as planned or was muddled in the fog of war ,or not executed as perfect as intended.
I could talk about the fact that Delta Force gave coordinates to the Air Force to a cave they were sure that OBL had taken refuge in .That they were monitoring radio traffic from OBL and the radio went silent after the assault on the cave by the air force began. That the bombing sealed the entrance to the cave and they were sure that OBL was a casualty . You want to call that a missed opportunity so be it .
Your left field cause for that I would dispute unless you can prove what mighta been. It is an exercise in pointlessness.
What if Gen. Meade had cut off General Lee's line of retreat after Gettysburg ? It most likely would've saved a years worth of fighting in the Civil War and countless lives .It was clearly a blown opportunity .
Despite the fact that there was a pretty robusts anti-war movement in the country ,a decision was not made to abandon the fight because the mop up of the battle did not go as planned.
I can think of many many SNAFUs and setbacks during WWII .As an example ,Roosevelt made a decision to not reinforce Corregidor. This lead to a defeat and the famous Bataan death march. Do I see a parallel between that decision and the new adopted ROEs and the debate to possibly not reinforce the theater ?
'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy
Perhaps .
Of greater significance on this day in 1950 US forces invaded North Korea by crossing the 38th parallel who knows what the pretext was for that but we are still reaping the rewards. I'm not arguing that the actions of the jihadists was a valid response, but that the US must come to understand that they created the monster through a foreign policy that sought to interfere in local conflicts and local politics. It's a message that the US doesn't like to hear because they believe their version of democracy perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
All you need for a jihadist to attack is to give them an excuse, no doubt about that, but you will never disuade them by giving them more excuses
A clear fractured fairy tale that cleverly leaves out the fact that the US was already defending South Korea against an invasion by the NORKS that began in June of 1950. Further ,it was not the US but a UN force fighting ;and as for your question about pretext ;it was a UN authorized escalation.Quote:
of greater significance on this day in 1950 US forces invaded North Korea by crossing the 38th parallel who knows what the pretext was for that but we are still reaping the rewards.
What a load of rubbish, you didn't do anything to save the Afghan people from the Soviet Union, stop watching rambo movies. You couldn't care less about Afghan independence, Afghanistan was a soviet client state. You did what you usually do and outsourced your "help" to a few misguided Muslims who had the audacity to get help from their brothers and actually win. There wasn't a US soldier in sight. You want to take credit for the mujahadeen then take credit for giving Muslims a reason for creating the Taliban alsoQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
What's the count on corrupt regimes created, aided and abetted by the US now, I've lost count and you want to tell me that there shouldn't be a backlash, afteral you were just helping. Rubbish, you were helping yourselves as usual
Hello again:
WHERE the enemy's of the US CAME from is not as important as where they are COMING from, right NOW - TODAY!!
You righty's argue about the past, as though it's important, all the while ignoring your HUGE NEON BLINKING TERRORIST RECRUITING POSTER hanging up in Gitmo...
And, you look around the world in wonderment, wide eyed, not having a clue why they're pissed off at us..
You righty's are VERY silly.
excon
You still don't get it. We could be as pure as snow and they would still attack us .
Gitmo offends you ;not them. The best prison in the ummah,and most in the US are hell holes compared to Gitmo.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No. YOU don't get it. We could be feeding them pheasant under glass in air conditioned luxury, and it wouldn't make a difference...
Keeping them FOREVER without a trial IS the issue - not their conditions... WHY you don't get that blows me away. Funny - you don't even DENY that we're screwing them over. You just say they'd be pissed at us ANYWAY... Your logic makes no sense... Really - it's totally bonkers.
excon
What blows me away is the fact that you STILL think terrorism and acts of war should be treated like crimes, and that people caught on the field of battle should be granted trials. There is no precedent for it anywhere in history or in the rules of war or the Geneva Conventions... but YOU think it's right.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
POWs don't get trials. They aren't criminals.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You STILL make your argument while ignoring the FACTS.
What you say WOULD be true, if the war at hand, like ALL previous wars, is going to END. But, the dufus said THIS war ISN'T going to end. THAT is what there's no precedence for in history, as well as your intention to keep the POW'S FOREVER...
The problem you righty's have, is the US Constitution... The dufus set up Gitmo specifically to AVOID US law... But, that sneaky LEFT WING Supreme Court, led by the radical leftist John Roberts, followed by those commie's Alito and Scalia TOLD the dufus that he couldn't DO that...
So, it's not ME who thinks it right... It's those commies on the Supreme Court...
excon
Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into.
And this is why you don't elect an amateur as president. Is there anything he hasn't bungled?Quote:
"It was easy to say, 'Hey, I support COIN,' because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes," said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.
The failure to reach a shared understanding of the resources required to execute the strategy has complicated the White House's response to the grim assessment of the war by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, forcing the president to decide, in effect, what his administration really meant when it endorsed a counterinsurgency plan. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's follow-up request for more forces, which presents a range of options but makes clear that the best chance of achieving the administration's goals requires an additional 40,000 U.S. troops on top of the 68,000 who are already there, has given senior members of Obama's national security team "a case of sticker shock," the administration official said.
When WWII started, and the USA started taking POWs, did anyone know when the war was going to end? Or IF it was going to end?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
How about in Vietnam? When the USA took VietCong and NVA POWs, did we know when the war was going to end, or even IF it was going to end?
Or Korea... did we know during the war when it would end and that any NK or Chinese POWs we took would eventually be released?
In fact, can you name any war in history where POWs were taken by one side or the other where either side knew that the war was going to end?
When POWs were taken during the 30 Years War or the 100 Years War (and some were), did anyone know when those wars were going to end?
Your argument is complete BS excon, because it assumes that in every war in history EXCEPT THIS ONE we knew that the war was only going to last for a specific amount of time and then all POWs would be released at the end of the war. The fact is that nobody has a crystal ball, nobody knows when a war is going to end, and yet we took POWs anyway and didn't give them trials. It was neither illegal nor immoral to do so. Nor is it illegal or immoral to do so in THIS war.
Elliot
Hello again, Elliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
If what you say is true, WHY has the ULTRA conservative Supreme Court weighed in and STOPPED the dufus at EVERY turn in Gitmo? IF it was as you say, I PROMISE you, Roberts, Scalia and their right wing cronies would be on YOUR side BIGTIME.
They aren't. Something's amiss with your argument BIGTIME. You're leaving out salient facts again, aren't you? I guess you think nobody is paying attention... It's actually kind of insulting, really. I guess you think I'm dumb. Poor Wolverine.
It's awfully hard to argue with you when you keep forgetting stuff.
excon
Which turns are those. Gitmo is still open for business. Even Obama hasn't been able to shut it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What makes you think they're not?Quote:
IF it was as you say, I PROMISE you, Roberts, Scalia and their right wing cronies would be on YOUR side BIGTIME.
In Boumedine v. Bush, Roberts, Scalia Thomas and Alito dissented with the majority of the Court's opinion vis-à-vis Habeas Corpus rights for POWs.
In Rasul v Bush, Thomas, Scalia and Renquist dissented with the Majority of the Court's opinion (this pre-dated Alito and Roberts).
In Hamdi V. Rumsfeld, O'Connor, Renquist, Breyer and Kennedy all agreed (Plurality opinion) that Bush had the authority to hold POWs under the powers granted him in the Authorization to Use Military Force. However, they also said that POWs had the right to challenge their detainment. The decision itself wa BAD LAW, but nothing there says that holding POWs indefinitely is illegal, just that there has to be a method for the POWs to challenge their detainment. Once that challenge is reviewed and denied, the POWs stay where they are INDEFINITELY.
At no point has there ever been a suggestion by the court that holding POWs indefinitely is illegal.
Sorry, you're wrong again.
Elliot
Steve ;I never read anything from Rajiv Chandrasekaran before but I have to commend the Washington Post . They have come down from the Obasism and are beginning to show some true investigative reporting on the President .Quote:
Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into.
What I don't understand is that the President with great fanfare made a speech to the CFR in March where he definitively announced an Afghan strategery based on his careful reading of the white paper his civilian advisors had prepared .
Obama's Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, March 2009 - Council on Foreign Relations
He said things like This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office.
In it he outlines many of the civilian initiatives like “opportunity zones”that Chandrasekaran mentions .However ,I have not seen any movement at all in that direction either ;nor is there any indication that that was ever a serious policy option.
Nor does it appear that he is serious about anything he does beyond the continued moving of domestic policy towards a leftist agenda. I cannot put my finger on anything concrete regarding a foreign policy besides delay tough choices and appease everyone. The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually the road comes to an end.
[QUOTE=tomder55;2020445]Yes they actually have, waiting for more to follow suit.Quote:
Steve ;I never read anything from Rajiv Chandrasekaran before but I have to commend the Washington Post . They have come down from the Obasism and are beginning to show some true investigative reporting on the President .
It seems to me most of Obama's policy is to reframe the debate. Just as health care reform became health insurance reform, the war in Afghanistan is now a war on Al Qaeda because the Taliban "do not pose a direct threat to the United States."Quote:
Nor does it appear that he is serious about anything he does beyond the continued moving of domestic policy towards a leftist agenda. I cannot put my finger on anything concrete regarding a foreign policy besides delay tough choices and appease everyone. The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually the road comes to an end.
Yeah that figures ;his Generals ;his Sec State ,his Sec Defense all are warning him against a policy his brilliant Vice President supports . So of course he is siding with the lone voice.
Oh yeah we put the dear of God in them!! If they learned that lesson after our reaction to 9-11 what leason have they learned from events of recent weeks ?Quote:
Moreover, they suggest that the Taliban have no interest in letting Al Qaeda back into Afghanistan because that was what cost them power when they were toppled by American-backed Afghan rebels in 2001.
I wonder if the President is going to arrange a hudna with the Taliban leaders to personally apologize to them for the misunderstanding ?
Edit : Flopping Aces has compiled some of the President's previous statements about Afghanistan.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/...-of-necessity/
He'll have to invite the Mahdi Hatter.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Cooperation Rises between Iran and Taliban . And naturally, Obama has muzzled the military on this... but remember, the Taliban is no direct threat to the U.S.
How much freakin' cover are we going to give Iran??Quote:
The west of Afghanistan, bordering Iran, is fast becoming a graveyard for U.S. forces. U.S. deaths there have spiked from four a year since the war began, to 13 in the last five months alone.
U.S. military officials have told CBS News that Iran is sending money and weapons onto the Afghan battlefield. But U.S. commanders are not allowed to comment publicly and it's unclear to them what the U.S. strategy is for dealing with Iran's increasingly deadly involvement.
It's not possible that Iran and the Taliban are cooperating . One is Shia and the other Sunni :rolleyes:
Then why do you think Ahamadjihad offered to help the negotiations. Was he just whistling in the wind. You are right though there is no love lost between the Taliban and the Iranians. Actually here's a strategy, pull out and let those guys fight it out instead of giving them a common enemy in proximityQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Prez just got the Nobel Peace Prize . Maybe that explains why the prick has been delaying a decision on increasing the troop strength!!
I guess it's too late for him to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics??
Yes he got the prize for a load of maybe and shouldbe; $20 million for a crock of... The prize for economics goes to Krudd for the stimulus that worked or did it just delay?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The Washington Post continues it's coverage of Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama(mmm mmm mmm... he was in office a total of 2 weeks before his nomination... Obamamessiah has now been crowned the prince of peace) and his deliberations on the best way to cut and run while at the same time not losing face. Scott Wilson reports today that the President sees Lebanon as a possible model .
washingtonpost.comQuote:
Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but the group has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process
This of course is a completely flawed analogy that has crossed the border to the absurd. Although it is true that Hezbollah has infiltrated Lebanese society enough to become a political entity as well as a terrorist organization ;it is hardly a national movement confined within the borders of Lebanon. Further it is a proxy of both Syria and Iran and acts according to their direction. Hezbollah also has expanded to a point where it has an active presence beyond the ME ;most notably it's expansion into Central America.
Hezbollah builds a Western base - Americas- msnbc.com
Counterterrorism Blog: The Hezbollah-Latin America Ties Become More Clear
Mary Anastasia O'Grady: Revolutionary Anti-Semitism - WSJ.com
But the President thinks if he opens the door for a return of the Taliban they will cease attacking us ;and will be content with sharing power in the country . Also I guess he thinks that they will cease undermining Pakistan. (mmm mmm mmm)
The first Nobel Peace Prize awarded for campaigning.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again:
Beyond whether the Taliban or Al Quaida or an insurgency is the enemy, there are BIGGER considerations. I mean WAY big...
Even though he promised "change", so far Obama has embraced the Bush Doctrine. His upcoming decision on troop strength in Afghanistan is the REAL test, though. It's because THAT decision will signify if REAL change is upon us..
Implementing the McCrystal plan will perpetuate the longstanding policy of maintaining a GLOBAL military presence. At its core, the McChrystal plan aims to AVERT CHANGE. Its purpose - despite 9/11 and despite the failures of Iraq - is to preserve the status quo.. .
If Obama assents to McChrystal's request, he will void his promise of change. The Afghanistan war will continue until the end of his first term and probably beyond. It will consume hundreds of billions of dollars. It will result in thousands more American combat deaths.
And, we still won't win. Like there's no crying in baseball, there's no winning in Afghanistan. THAT is what's at stake in his decision.
excon
PS> There's a Frontline special on Afghanistan this Friday. Watch it, and report back.
The problem you have here ex is if Obama opts not to take the McChrystal route it will reveal the "contrived and disingenuous" Afghan policy that he and the Democrats have championed since the 2004 Kerry campaign. And as tom and Krauthammer noted, he'll have to backtrack on the strategy he announced and endorsed on March 27th.
Your guy has dug himself a nice hole here.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
He did, but things change. This is something you guys NEVER consider. If we start a war, even if it was the WRONG war, you still think we have to WIN it...
You even cite the last dead soldier as the reasons we need to risk more dead soldiers. Frankly, that makes NO sense. You put your soldiers at risk to achieve the objective.. If, however, you HAVE NO objective, you cite the last dead soldier as the reason we need to keep fighting. Somehow you think we have to honor him by risking more DEAD soldiers... Nope. It don't make ANY sense to me.
But, if Obama is the leader I HOPE he is, he will LEAD instead of following.. We'll see what he's going to do. I'm not confident in a positive outcome. Changing the course of the ship of state ain't an easy thing to do.
excon
No change in lying is there ? He campaigned emphatically calling Afghanistan a necessary war. What changed ? He won ? Or was it a throw away one-liner calling it a necessary war with a wink and a nod to the left base with an understanding that he was lying . But then he added that Afghanistan was the central front on the war on terror . Was he lying then also ? Was his selection of hardliner Evita also subterfuge ? How about Richard Holbrook? Was personally appointing General McChrystal ? Knowing full well how they would advise him ;why did he select them ? For some kind of shallow political cover ?
When General Paetraus proposed the surge in Iraq . The Congressional Democrats could not wait to haul him up to Capitol Hill for him to lay out the justification for his plan. But now ;when a similar plan is proposed by the theater commander the Dems. Won't give him the time of day. He was all but forced to go public with his plan to get any hearing on it at all.
This tells me the President isn't and never was serious about Afghanistan . It was all merely a campaign talking point.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Again, you seem to think that once a decision is made, even if it's the WRONG decision, we need to stick with it... You call LEADING, lying. I don't.
What changed?? I don't know what changed for HIM, if ANYTHING. But, I told you what changed for ME. It was the same AHAAA kind of moment I had when I turned against the war in Vietnam. I don't recall what it was right now, but I'm sure it had to do with dead soldiers and leaders not quite knowing WHY they're dead.
I hope you're right about him.. But, I fear he's really a dufus just like the original... He hasn't YET shown me he has the chops for the job.
excon
I certainly did not call what he has done leadership. But I'm glad you recognize that when the policy in Iraq was a struggle ;that President Bush showed leadership by changing course and supporting the surge . Yes sir ;real leadership .
Let's be clear about this...
Again, just to be clear...Quote:
March 27, 2009
Good morning. Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review that I ordered as soon as I took office. My Administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. We have consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments; with our partners and NATO allies; and with other donors and international organizations. And we have also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. Now, I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people.
The situation is increasingly perilous. It has been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. Most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces.
Many people in the United States – and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much – have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer.
So let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies – the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks – are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.
The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe-haven to hide, train terrorists, communicate with followers, plot attacks, and send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.
But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.
For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people – especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence.
As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.
So 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. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Even though I opposed it, I agree. He DID show leadership. It may have been the ONLY time he did. I, however, still am loathe to call it a success... We have a LOT of troops keeping the lid on an insurgency that is just waiting to get underway. Or, if you look carefully, they're really not waiting at all...
I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Iraq is fixed. I don't think so. We'll see. So, the dufus lead. The question that remains for me, is did he lead good.
The Wolverine thinks the additional 40,000 troops plus the 60,000 there will be enough to win. He's NUTS. There's NO winning in Afghanistan. It's not really a country. You can't defeat not a country. If we had a half a million troops there, we wouldn't win.
excon
Oh... I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
A war on terror is a bad thing because you can't beat terrorists because they don't have a country.
When you instead fight against the countries that support terrorism and in which terrorists are currently hiding, they aren't really countries either. :rolleyes:
Convenient how that works. :D
Elliot
You don't start a war you don't think you can win, but this is one the US would never win. The more troops are sent the more likely the Taliban will fade away to return later, this is a war of ideology not territoryQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes it is, do you think Bin Laden might have realised this? Perhaps he did it to draw the US into an unwinnable war, to drain their resources at the same time hoping to cripple them economically, knowing that US pride would prevent them from taking a longer view and not committing large numbers of troops. Quite a grand strategy after all?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Uh huh...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
To paraphrase General Norman Schwartzkopf, except for the fact that he has no strategic experience, no tactical skill and doesn't know which end of a rifle to hold forward, OBL is a BRILLIANT military leader.
Yep. What a strategy.
>snicker<
Elliot
Evening All,
It is good to see that support for the armed forces of any nation is being given to people
At present there has been a lot said in England about the way our soldiers are being treated upon return here
In the last 12 months there has been upsurge of pride and admiration for those fallen and those who have come back
If we are ever going to achieve peace and stability throughout the world then these wars must be unfortunately fought.
Not to mention that the whole situation from 911 highlights what happens when regimes are left in the mess they were left by other countries, particularly American And the UK in past generations
We campaign for safer streets from our neighbours who might do us harm, and yet people protest over a war that was inevitable
As regards the comments above, NATO is sadly out of touch, with ideals that were created after WWII now a distant memory
France and Germany objected to Iraq for one main reason, MONEY
Both countries had a lot of vested interest in these parts of the world, for nothing more than this part of the world finds it hard to deal with American Companies and Commonwealth states, no surprise there
In addition, Germany does not have an army to speak off - WWII fall out still on that issue
France and The UK have rarely seen eye to eye on any issue for just over a thousand years, can't see it changing soon
The point here, is there is an enormous amount of history driving today's events, all of which need to be sorted out if we are too move forward
And to the Men and Women who place themselves in the firing line to achieve something good and right - you all should be applauded as heroes
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 AM. |