[speechlesstx]

Great history lesson and well said, tom.

[excon]

Great history lesson and well said, tom.

Hello again,

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

[ETWolverine]

Elliot

You have missed my point. The Taliban have no interest in the US other than removing the US troops from their country. It was Al Qaeda that attacked the US not the Taliban.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So... according to you, if the USA had not helped the Mujahadeen fight the Soviets, there never would have been a Taliban.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

THERE it is... I've been waiting for it. The typical liberal call of "blame the victim".

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[paraclete]

Tomorrow is the 438th anniversary of the naval battle of Lepanto. It was the last major battle between navies using oared vessels. This was an epoch sea change battle won by a European coalition primarily from Spain, Venice, and Genoa under the command of Don Juan of Austria ,against the Ottomans that stemmed the advance of the Ottomans and their goal of subjugating the West into the Ummah. You will note that there was no US policy to use as a casus belli nor was there any Israel. Nor have the jihadists ever needed a pretext beyond the words of the prophet and his succeeding kindred of Cain to attack the infidel.

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.

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

[tomder55]

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.

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.

[paraclete]

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

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 also

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[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:

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

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, tom:

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.

POWs don't get trials. They aren't criminals.

Elliot

[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.

Hello again, Elliot:

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

[speechlesstx]

Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into.

"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.

And this is why you don't elect an amateur as president. Is there anything he hasn't bungled?

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

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

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?

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

[excon]

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.

Hello again, Elliot:

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

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Elliot:

If what you say is true, WHY has the ULTRA conservative Supreme Court weighed in and STOPPED the dufus at EVERY turn in Gitmo?

Which turns are those. Gitmo is still open for business. Even Obama hasn't been able to shut it down.

IF it was as you say, I PROMISE you, Roberts, Scalia and their right wing cronies would be on YOUR side BIGTIME.

What makes you think they're not?

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

[tomder55]

Here's why Obama is having problems with McChrystal's request... they signed on to his plan without knowing what they were getting into.

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 .

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.

[speechlesstx]

[QUOTE=tomder55;2020445]

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 .

Yes they actually have, waiting for more to follow suit.

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.

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."

[tomder55]

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.

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.

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 ?

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/