 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 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.
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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 .
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) |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
Let's be clear about this...
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
Leadership v victory
Originally Posted by excon
|
||||
|
||||
|
Strategy
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Out of Afghanistan - George Will
[ 52 Answers ]
Hello: Leading conservative writer George Will said we should get OUT of Afghanistan and focus on the border with Pakistan with our unmanned but heavily ARMED drones... I agree. We ain't going to win in Afghanistan. excon
Start a business in afghanistan?
[ 3 Answers ]
I want to start a company in afganistan. There use to be war going on and not much companies are there. Not much competition. I have some ideas like soap, tea, toilet paper company. But I need help on how to start it. What do I need to do first.
Afghanistan
[ 26 Answers ]
Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort . Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all...
View more questions Search
|
