View Full Version : August in Afghanistan
cj's dad
09-02-2009, 12:33 PM
50+ American GI's KIA; the most casualties in any one month since the invasion of that country.
This is no longer George Bush's war. Where is the outcry from our friends on the left and the mainstream media? The silence is indeed deafening.
46?
You gonna water this rutabaga?
Sec?
Time to whine?
as i said long ago.
this is not what we should be doing.
G.Will has it correct, it took him a while to get there but he is correct.
We , who have a war on poverty,drugs,illiteracy and you name it over here for 20-50 years with terrible results actually think WE can force by clear and holding a pile of rocks somewhere a country where 99% of the people can't read and the other 1% are criminal maniacs and worse to become what exactly?
What hubris on our part.
Realize what you can reasonable do and strive for that.
Give up this misguided nation building b.s. before it's too late.
Someday we will realize the previous principles were the correct ones.
The Ruskies exterminated whole families(Nazi style) for ten years.
Nothing doing.
Unless you want to adopt those tactics (which will fail) they will just wait you out in some other "safe haven".
46zilzal
09-02-2009, 12:49 PM
do or don't. Same thing as many of these idiotic conflicts that ULTIMATELY accomplish NOTHING going back to the Spanish American War (or was that wipe out?)
Marshall Bennett
09-02-2009, 01:23 PM
Liberals are okay with war when it's on their stage . :)
Light
09-02-2009, 01:33 PM
50+ American GI's KIA; the most casualties in any one month since the invasion of that country.
This is no longer George Bush's war. Where is the outcry from our friends on the left and the mainstream media? The silence is indeed deafening.
Obama is not only escalating the war,he is continuing alot of Bush's policies including torture even though he talks like he is against it.The tears that Rev.Jessie Jackson shed when Obama was elected have turned to tears of dissapointment. The hope Obama talked about has turned to chaos and despair. To answer this repeated question about where the outrage is on Obama's about face,all I can say is its a matter of time. The drive against Bush was gradual and slowly built up the uglier the Iraq war got. Obama's excuse is that he inherited the wars which he did. But I have been talking to people on the left and like me,they are not happy at all about his talk peace and bomb policy.Believe me,his time is running out before he can keep blaming Bush for continuing a policy that rationalizes an unnecessary and unwinnable war.
tick..tock...tick....tock.....obama's clock....is winding down
NJ Stinks
09-02-2009, 04:23 PM
When George Will gets it right first, it's embarrassing.
I can't stand this stupidity. And I haven't forgiven JFK or LBJ either and they are gone.
It's enough to make me vote Republican. Can't say it any plainer than that.
Show Me the Wire
09-02-2009, 04:50 PM
do or don't. Same thing as many of these idiotic conflicts that ULTIMATELY accomplish NOTHING going back to the Spanish American War (or was that wipe out?)
Disappointing, that you wax philosophically now about Obama's war, instead of ranting on about how evil and stupid he is.
Show Me the Wire
09-02-2009, 04:53 PM
Obama is not only escalating the war,he is continuing alot of Bush's policies including torture even though he talks like he is against it.The tears that Rev.Jessie Jackson shed when Obama was elected have turned to tears of dissapointment. The hope Obama talked about has turned to chaos and despair. To answer this repeated question about where the outrage is on Obama's about face,all I can say is its a matter of time. The drive against Bush was gradual and slowly built up the uglier the Iraq war got. Obama's excuse is that he inherited the wars which he did. But I have been talking to people on the left and like me,they are not happy at all about his talk peace and bomb policy.Believe me,his time is running out before he can keep blaming Bush for continuing a policy that rationalizes an unnecessary and unwinnable war.
Told you so, proir to the elections, that his supporters would be disillusioned by Obombma's war policies. ;)
46zilzal
09-02-2009, 05:21 PM
Disappointing, that you wax philosophically now about Obama's war, instead of ranting on about how evil and stupid he is.
The MAJORITY of armed conflicts of this CENTURY have been a total waste of time effort and money and have changed little. let's recall those GREAT ones beginning with the Hearst war (Spanish American) the wildly popular Boxer rebellion, multiple Central American conflicts to put in those friendly DICTATORS and making sure that those corporations raping the land are kept there in power.......Grenada, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq take your pick a waste of lives on both sides for NOTHING
Show Me the Wire
09-02-2009, 05:28 PM
The MAJORITY of armed conflicts of this CENTURY have been a total waste of time effort and money and have changed little. let's recall those GREAT ones beginning with the Hearst war (Spanish American) the wildly popular Boxer rebellion, multiple Central American conflicts to put in those friendly DICTATORS and making sure that those corporations raping the land are kept there in power.......Grenada, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq take your pick a waste of lives on both sides for NOTHING
Not arguing your point about accomplishments. I am dumbfounded that you are not ranting that Obama is a stupid, evil, clown for continuing the very same policies you protested as stupid, evil and clownish under Bush's administration.
Please clarify the differences why the same policies are not stupid, evil and vile under obama's administration.
46zilzal
09-02-2009, 05:36 PM
Not arguing your point about accomplishments. I am dumbfounded that you are not ranting that Obama is a stupid, evil, clown for continuing the very same policies you protested as stupid, evil and clownish under Bush's administration.
Please clarify the differences why the same policies are not stupid, evil and vile under obama's administration.
Did you train as a lawyer?
War is a stupid waste of time effort money and humanity and throughout HISTORY has changed little in the long run
Show Me the Wire
09-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Did you train as a lawyer?
War is a stupid waste of time effort money and humanity and throughout HISTORY has changed little in the long run
Okay, we agree on the characteristics of war. Now please explain why Obama is not, stupid, evil, and clownish.
Show Me the Wire
09-02-2009, 06:12 PM
zilly:
For your edification, You may want to peek at this link before you formulate your reply, trying to justify your past fake moral outrage.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8621076&mesg_id=8621076
jballscalls
09-02-2009, 06:32 PM
i was going to say, i think many on the left are mad about it. i live with Obama supporters and live in portland where he is/was god, and many around here are pissed he's adding troops amd staying in this war
riskman
09-02-2009, 06:33 PM
It has taken the guerilla forces about 8 years to get well organized, get good weapons, and be able to coordinate moves across wide areas very effectively. That's roughly how long it took for them to do those things and blow away the vast, previously undefeated Soviet Red Army. Now it is all coming to fruition, and we better have a game plan or things could start falling apart very fast.
Senior US generals warn of defeat in Afghanistan if the US forces is not doubled. The conflict continues to spread into neighboring Pakistan.Casualties continue to mount and we have nothing to show but multibillion -dollar illicit narcotics industry which finances much of the insurgency and the influence of drug money is a major reason the Afghan government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Why are we there?
Greyfox
09-02-2009, 06:52 PM
Senior US generals warn of defeat in Afghanistan if the US forces is not doubled. The conflict continues to spread into neighboring Pakistan.Casualties continue to mount and we have nothing to show but multibillion -dollar illicit narcotics industry which finances much of the insurgency and the influence of drug money is a major reason the Afghan government is one of the most corrupt in the world. Why are we there?
Good question and bears serious consideration.
1. We are there because the Taliban that were governing were sponsoring terrorist camps.
2. In the meanwhile, GWBush took his eye off the ball and put his focus on Iraq.
3. NATO allies and some US troops were given the impossible task of establishing "democracy" in Afghanistan.
4. For years the Afghanistan situation was ignored.
5. The U.S. and NATO allies were able to only establish limited control in a limited region of Afghanistan. Taliban insurgents were allowed to muster.
6. Throughout that entire 8 years, maybe 1 poppy field was destroyed by either burning or plowing under. For whatever reason, the armed forces have essentially ignored those fields knowing that this God forsaken land has one agricultural product of any value at all - heroin.
7. The entire region has for hundreds of years been governed by tribes whose morality is based on "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Hence the installed government and all branches of it are corrupt to the core.
8. The Government there will leech all they can out of the visiting forces on the pretense that they someday will have their own soldiers ready to take over and control the Taliban. At the rate that this is occurring, it doesn't look like this will ever happen.
9. When the allied forces leave, the place is going to wide open again for more tribal fighting with the Taliban using fear principles to gain control.
10. Unless these external armed forces get serious and use some big time fire power on these criminally funded insurgents, this region will remain a mess for many years to come. It's well past time to get rid of the poppy fields too.
11. Has any one heard of any exit strategy from Obama yet?
Greyfox
09-03-2009, 12:05 AM
"What's the exit plan for Afghanistan? Has anyone seen it?"
riskman
09-03-2009, 12:37 AM
"What's the exit plan for Afghanistan? Has anyone seen it?"
Has Obama thought his way through to how this war ends in victory and we withdraw all U.S. ground troops from Afghanistan? I cannot see anywhere on the horizon any such ending. Is a vital U.S. interest imperiled here? Do we have a defined and attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully weighed? Is the war supported by a united nation?
How many of these questions did Obama ask himself before pledging more U.S combat troops to what will surely become"Obama's war."
"What's the exit plan for Afghanistan? Has anyone seen it?"
Uh, don't forget the T I M E L I N E
Remember the libs were whining and crying about a time line? :D
the time line is known if you make any attempt to understand bama.
eyes on the prize.
that would be 2012 of course.
He would have never "supported" the afg but to have a "war" to show that he had the foreign policy chops.
This was only a device to use during elections.
That's all.
He couldn't come out and say he wanted out of both or Clintons would have killed him as a far lefty appeaser.
The timeline would be measured as infinty and not much will change.
You don't get people to give up their way of life, they may evolve out of it, but they won't do it at gunpoint or by use of firepower.
Our goal was to disrupt life for the terrorist, we have done that, move on.
Light
09-03-2009, 12:50 PM
Told you so, proir to the elections, that his supporters would be disillusioned by Obombma's war policies. ;)
I never voted for Obama. But this anti Obama rhetoric by the right against Obama's policies has a double standard. The right is politically partisaned and really doesn't give a crap about the horrors of war. If Bush was doing what Obama is doing (and he probably would if he was still in office) it would be far fetched to think conservatives would be as critical about the war. It is wrong for either side to be pro war or anti war based on whether their leader is in office.
That is why I did not vote for Obama. I knew he was going to have innocent people killed, and knowing I cast a vote for someone like that would bother my conscious. I have only voted once in my life for a president, when I turned 21 just to see how it was,but will never vote for an American president again. They are all murderers. It's not up to them.
light,
My position is this - Bush declared war on terror and we agreed with him - whatever it takes, we go to war.
Obama tries to pretend his not at war and offers the rights of our citizens to terrorists, while murdering them - by his standards.
Myself, I don't care how many we kill, but I will not allow this POS PREZ to get away with lying about it. I support killing terrorist, but I do not support Obama killing them.
lsbets
09-03-2009, 03:06 PM
Obama finds himself in the same position in Afghanistan that Bush found himself in with Iraq in 2006 - no strategy, mounting losses, and a growing insurgency. There has to be a change in strategy. In 06, I said frequently that Bush had only two options - an immediate pullout (phased withdrawal was bullshit) or doing what we had to in order to bring the situation under control. When virtually everyone from both parties was clamoring for withdrawal, Bush listened to Gen Petraeus (who was lambasted by the left in one of the most disgusting displays of hating the troops they have ever perpetrated) and implemented the surge. That was the most courageous decision Bush made while in office, and that decision crushed hmi politically.
Now Obama has to make a similar choice. A phased withdrawal is bullshit, an immediate pullout or a new strategy that would more than likely involve more troops. Obama already fired and publicly humiliated one commander in Afghanistan who told him that he could not get the job done unless he had more troops, but it seems Obama might be more receptive to that strategy now. However, Afghanistan is not Iraq, and I am concerned we will make the same mistake militaries constantly make - refighting the last war. The new strategy in Afghanistan cannot be a rehash of the Petraeus strategy in Iraq. If we cannot fashion a strategy that has a good chance of success, we need to leave there tomorrow. If we can put such a strategy together, than we need to support it with everything we have. I hope Obama has the courage to do the right thing.
I believe we need some bases there, but that's it.
We fight on our terms only. Drones and hit and run smash and kill commando type raids based on intell.
That's it.
If the Afg people want change THEY can affect it , without us.
I assume they like most want an end or at least a slowdown in the violence.
If the Taliban can give them that(they did in the past) then that's fine by me.
I don't care about the Taliban running the place, we can use them or a great portion of them.
This was nothing we have not done before in the past.
I don't see anyway on earth to justify or support keeping a force of 100-140K forever.
Plus, 50-75K in Iraq.
BY the way our people will be in Iraq after bama is gone , even if he wins another term. The day we leave, that place is toast so as long as we are in AFG we are stuck in Iraq as well.
The whole thing was a disaster done for noble(benefit of the doubt given) reasons.
We could have used proxies over there and done just fine.
If we hang around long enough we will get into a Kurd/Turk firefight and who knows what else.
Nothing has been solved and won't be without an all out war.
Bush really had no choice, he looked for someone who could give him an out and he found him finally.
He could not pull out. Kennedy and the Bay Of pigs comes to mind.
The Saudis for one would have cut him off at the knees for they were more afraid of the terror threats than Saddam. Once you open pandora's box they were not going to let us hand it over to them.
I doubt Bush had any choice in the matter and as we all know, he was a stubborn guy.
he was not going to "lose a war" , just as he wasn't going to be Hoover.
Both outcomes were purely driven by political consideration and HIS place in history.
The problem is that the countries place in history not HIS should be the top concern.
The problem with all of them more and more over the years.
It's all about them.
Amen, ls, shot of get off the pot.
Half-hearted wars are unacceptable.
jballscalls
09-03-2009, 08:08 PM
i was thinking Billy Joel wrote a song called August in Afghanistan, but it was Christmas in Fallujah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDPK3HUH4I&feature=related
Warren Henry
09-03-2009, 10:01 PM
I never voted for Obama. But this anti Obama rhetoric by the right against Obama's policies has a double standard. The right is politically partisaned and really doesn't give a crap about the horrors of war. If Bush was doing what Obama is doing (and he probably would if he was still in office) it would be far fetched to think conservatives would be as critical about the war. It is wrong for either side to be pro war or anti war based on whether their leader is in office.
I don't speak for everyone on the right, but you grossly misinterpret how I feel. I hate war, but realize that sometimes the cold realities of war are better than the cold realities of what is likely to happen without the war. Our losses in WWII were horrendous - a significant part of a whole generation of our young men wiped out. However, had we not fought that war (along with our Allies), the ultimate outcome would have been much worse.
I am not opposed to Obama being at war. I am only calling him out for being a hypocrite. What he says and what he does are totally different. He demeaned his opponents for believing something that he himself is embracing by his current actions.
Like others have stated in recent posts, a halfaxxed war is no good. That is part of what was wrong with Vietnam. We had sufficient resources to crush North Vietnam, but somehow that wasn't the goal. We need to decide what are our objectives, state them clearly, then DO IT. The citizens of this country have proven in the past that they DO have the stomach for an all out war. What they can't handle is a wishy-washy halfaxxed sorta war.
cj's dad
09-04-2009, 10:22 AM
Destroy every poppy field in Afghanistan. Considering the multiple problems caused by heroin distribution here and in Europe, why is this not being considered/implemented?
It can be and should be done asap.
Marshall Bennett
09-04-2009, 10:35 AM
Destroy every poppy field in Afghanistan. Considering the multiple problems caused by heroin distribution here and in Europe, why is this not being considered/implemented?
It can be and should be done asap.
I suppose because it's the life-line for millions there . It puts food on the table . It's never been a secret that our government is more concerned with that than the millions of addicts here .
cj's dad
09-04-2009, 10:48 AM
I suppose because it's the life-line for millions there . It puts food on the table . It's never been a secret that our government is more concerned with that than the millions of addicts here .
I have always believed that and also that many here are making big $$$ off the sale of herion.
The question would be "do we as a country sacrifice the health (read:addiction) of millions in THIS country to ensure that the Afghanis have food on THEIR tables"?
Marshall Bennett
09-04-2009, 12:11 PM
I have always believed that and also that many here are making big $$$ off the sale of herion.
The question would be "do we as a country sacrifice the health (read:addiction) of millions in THIS country to ensure that the Afghanis have food on THEIR tables"?
Apparently so . It's been going on forever . The same can be said for a host of other nations who's poor work fields to benifit the thirst of addicts worldwide . I believe it's a cycle for which there truly is no cure .
Greyfox
09-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Apparently so . It's been going on forever . The same can be said for a host of other nations who's poor work fields to benifit the thirst of addicts worldwide . I believe it's a cycle for which there truly is no cure .
cj's Dad has the cure. Over 90 % of heroin in the world comes from Afghanistan.
Burn those bloody fields. If you cut off the source at the root, we can do rehab with those who need it later. In the meanwhile, it is a chief source of funds for gangsters who are funding Taliban.
cj's Dad has the cure. Over 90 % of heroin in the world comes from Afghanistan.
Burn those bloody fields. If you cut off the source at the root, we can do rehab with those who need it later. In the meanwhile, it is a chief source of funds for gangsters who are funding Taliban.
what a hoot.
Ok, insert magic wand wave, poppy fields are gone , no more in AFG.
Now, what do they use for money/food, not just the Taliban, how many Taliban do you think are there anyway?
Same old "strategy" , we must burn down the village to save it, kill all the people to rescue them.
Heard that one before, can't recall exactly ................ :D
Do we support them after the Taliban surrender :lol: due to some poppy fields going up in smoke?
What a bunch of , what a bunch...............
The gvt of AFG gets more from poppy fields than any Taliban ever will.
Karzai and his bro are neck deep in the trade.
And the millions health quote is priceless, you think if you dry up the supply they will do what exactly, switch to viagra or something.
What a bunch of thinkers....my goodness. :lol:
REHAB LATER! another gasser.
We have been doing rehab for 30 years. less support for it everyday or are you in favor of a gvt national HC for addicts!
Yeah, I can see the votes flooding in for that one! :lol: :lol:
What a riot are you guys trying for a webby here? :D :D
Obama " folks you are going to have to SACRIFICE like never before, we are today starting a 10TRILLION dollar plan to turn AFG and all our besotted druggies over here into God's little Christian soldiers.
Make out checks to AFG/coke head fund and send to The White House DC: care of the green czar(who knows more about fields of green anyway)Von jones.
It's YOUR MORAL DUTY.
Yeah, I can see the votes flooding in for that one! :lol: :lol:
Marshall Bennett
09-04-2009, 02:12 PM
cj's Dad has the cure. Over 90 % of heroin in the world comes from Afghanistan.
Burn those bloody fields. If you cut off the source at the root, we can do rehab with those who need it later. In the meanwhile, it is a chief source of funds for gangsters who are funding Taliban.
If it were that simple there wouldn't exist a cocaine source either . Columbia is much closer to home , there isn't the Taliban element , so smoke the place and problem solved , perhaps as far as the cocaine source is concerned . In the mean time you've orchestrated an economic disaster , put millions of poor out of work , and probably starved half the country to death . Oh , but why limit this plan of attack to Afghanistan and Columbia . There exist simular conditions through out the far east , Mexico , Turkey , just to name a few . That's a lot of smoke .
smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
plus we are smoking out a bunch of drugs up in those hills above LA, nobody but me seems in favor of that operation!
:D
Greyfox
09-04-2009, 02:50 PM
So ddog and MB are saying that Afghanistan is totally dependent on continuing to supply heroin. They are right. A large part of the economy there has evolved that way. Even the Government officials get baksheesh from it.
Excuse me, but I thought that once upon a time there was "A War on Drugs."
Oh silly me. It's okay to grow the stuff, just don't sell it.
Obviously neither of these individuals have had emaciated relatives climbing the walls, committing crimes in the suburbs, prostitution, begging in the streets to support their addictions.
They imply that it would be silly for the rest of us to think that is all the Afghans are capable of doing. I mean it's so easy to grow the stuff. It would take education, change of mind sets, scientific research to determine alternate crops and so on if we were to go down that avenue. All that sounds like too much work and energy.
If something is right, we should be able to universalize the principle. In effect, that implies if its okay to grow poppys there, then it would be okay to grow poppys here.
Well I don't buy that. If the "War on Drugs" is on the Governments back burner, it ain't on mine. How much does the Afghan farmer get for his toil, versus the king pins who sell the stuff? My guess is "Not a hell of a lot."
Other Third World nations have learned to adjust to the ever changing economies of this planet. Afghans can as well. But they won't until we
burn those bloody fields.
Quagmire
09-04-2009, 02:53 PM
Whatever happened to "Just Say No"?
Show Me the Wire
09-04-2009, 03:06 PM
We could adopt Mao Tse-tung's approach to cure opiate type addictions. His really was a war on drugs.
Show Me the Wire
09-04-2009, 03:16 PM
So ddog and MB are saying that Afghanistan is totally dependent on continuing to .....
They imply that it would be silly for the rest of us to think that is all the Afghans are capable of doing. I mean it's so easy to grow the stuff. It would take education, change of mind sets, scientific research to determine alternate crops and so on if we were to go down that avenue. All that sounds like too much work and energy.
.........
Other Third World nations have learned to adjust to the ever changing economies of this planet. Afghans can as well. But they won't until we
burn those bloody fields.
Poppies are about the only thing they can grow there.
Marshall Bennett
09-04-2009, 03:35 PM
Greyfox , all you've said makes sense . What makes sense often isn't the solution . First , educating the world when we can't even educate people here at home . Trying to police the world when we can't even clean up the shit here at home . We've basically got our hands tied as to the resources we've got to embark on a global war on drugs . There's simply too much of it , political roadblocks , and a serious consequence to burning countries that don't belong to us . I believe the education factor is perhaps the most important element , and util we achieve it here at home , and reduce the demand , there won't be a solution .
Greyfox
09-04-2009, 03:47 PM
I believe the education factor is perhaps the most important element , and util we achieve it here at home , and reduce the demand , there won't be a solution .
Yes. You and I agree on that. :ThmbUp:
I also believe that the demand wouldn't be there if the supply can't be there.
Most addicts never left school with the goal to become addicts. Heroin is one of the worst addictions.
Secretariat
09-04-2009, 03:50 PM
I think you're missing the major point that has been discussed over and over here. Afghanistan was never "Bush's war" or "Obama's war", it was retaliation for 911. Afhanistan was the hub from where the Taliban helped shield and support Al queda who was behind the attack on the the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
GW didn't run into massive trouble in his invasion of Afghanistan to bring to justice the people behind 911, but where GW ran into trouble was when America invaded a country that had nothing to do with 911. When he decided to use 911 as an excuse for forced democritization, and using bogus claims to do so. General Shinseki saw right through it at the time as well as many Americans so Iraq became a war of choice as opposed to a war to fight the culprits who invaded our country on 911.
It was a huge blunder and cost over 4000 American lives and countless wounded as well as the deaths of thousands of civilians. A totally needless war that increased the strength of the Shia in the region and emboldened Iran.
But why are people not complaining about Afghanistan like they did Iraq? Because we want Bin Laden that's why. People joined up after 911 to get this guy. The guy in charge of the terrorist organization behind the 911 attacks. Not make beleive WMD's or forced democritization. That said, it is brutal to see Americans killed, but at least we now know we're in pursuit of the guy behind the actual 911 attacks as we should have been doing full force since 2001, not bogged down in Iraq.
I had advocated burning the poppy fields down back in 2001, but Rumsfeld and the Generals declared that burning the poppy fields down would only anger the farmers who would then look to the Taliban for allegiance since those are their profitable crops. A Bush decision which has some validity. Without viable crops that can make the money for them that poppy fields can it is a difficult task. However, my primary concern is not democritizing Afghanisitan, but getting the guys responsible for 911. If the Taliban handed us Bin Laden and the al queda primary leaders in exchange for a peace treaty I think it is something to consider.
Greyfox
09-04-2009, 04:09 PM
I think you're missing the major point that has been discussed over and over here. Afghanistan was never "Bush's war" or "Obama's war", it was retaliation for 911........
I had advocated burning the poppy fields down back in 2001, but Rumsfeld and the Generals declared that burning the poppy fields down would only anger the farmers who would then look to the Taliban for allegiance since those are their profitable crops. A Bush decision which has some validity. Without viable crops that can make the money for them that poppy fields can it is a difficult task. However, my primary concern is not democritizing Afghanisitan, but getting the guys responsible for 911. If the Taliban handed us Bin Laden and the al queda primary leaders in exchange for a peace treaty I think it is something to consider.
I don't think that you and I are disagreeing a lot here.
Nor do I think that anyone's missing the major point.
I wrote back on Post 18 of this thread:
"1. We are there because the Taliban that were governing were sponsoring terrorist camps.
2. In the meanwhile, GWBush took his eye off the ball and put his focus on Iraq."
+++++++++
However, when a dog face Soldier comes home in a body bag due to a Taliban bullet or grenade purchased by poppy field money, it's time to take a tougher line.
One thing for sure, it is Obama's war now. 100% his.
The busk stops at his desk.
Secretariat
09-05-2009, 09:59 PM
I don't think that you and I are disagreeing a lot here.
Nor do I think that anyone's missing the major point.
I wrote back on Post 18 of this thread:
"1. We are there because the Taliban that were governing were sponsoring terrorist camps.
2. In the meanwhile, GWBush took his eye off the ball and put his focus on Iraq."
+++++++++
However, when a dog face Soldier comes home in a body bag due to a Taliban bullet or grenade purchased by poppy field money, it's time to take a tougher line.
While #1 is true, I think it goes beyond that. We are there because of 911, because Al Queda was centered there. There have been terrorist camps throughout the globe. Until 911, we have not gone to war over terrorist camps.
Totally agree with number 2 above.
As to eradication of the poppy fields, here's what General Richard Myers stated in front of Congress after the invasion of Iraq, and Rumsfeld agreed that the eradication of the poppy fields was not part of the plan. in fact Karzai attmepted to pay farmers NOT to grow poppies, but it just was not financially profitable for the farmers (those damn capitalists).
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/central_asia/gc30ag01.html
"Though the problem is known to the world, the Pentagon refuses to deal with it. It is not the military's job to eradicate poppy fields, says the Pentagon. Indeed, it would antagonize the warlords who remain the mainstays of the Pentagon in Afghanistan, say observers."
Greyfox
09-05-2009, 10:25 PM
http://www.dontpaniconline.com/var/uploads/mag/images/photo_1222094027.jpg
The United Nations is reporting a slight decrease in 2008, however,
it has steadily grown during the war. In Kandahar province, where the Allied troops are, production has risen 35 % in the last year.
See also: http://www.dontpaniconline.com/magazine/fast/forgotten-wars---afghanistan
Greyfox
09-05-2009, 10:48 PM
I should have mentioned that the above graph is in Thousands of Hectares.
hec·tare n. Abbr. ha
A metric unit of area equal to 100 ares (2.471 acres).
robert99
09-06-2009, 02:58 PM
Farmers have grown more wheat this year as World price is high. If wheat price falls, they are back to poppies. There is no work and no alternatives to make a living that still funds all the corruption and hangers on.
Need 3 times the troops to hold the ground that NATO temporarily win. Then they can start to clear the roads of new Taliban mines in the ground just lost and the old Russian mines still left. Locals getting blown up too. UK has over 200 soldiers dead and 1200 now without limbs etc and for what?
Whilst NATO troops are getting blown up outside Kabul the same old problems with private security as in Iraq:
"Scantily-clad security guards dancing around a bonfire and urinating while others snap photographs. A video of other guards pouring alcohol down the bare backside of a new recruit and trying to drink it as it spills from the man's buttocks.
The images, which flashed around the world this week, appear to show security guards employed at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul in some highly embarrassing moments.
But there's more to it than that.
The images are part of a report by the independent watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, delivered to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week.
The group, citing e-mails, photos, videos, and witness accounts, accuses private security contractor ArmorGroup North America, which provides security guards for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, of "grossly deficient" management that it says poses "a significant threat to the security of the embassy and its personnel -- and thereby to the diplomatic mission in Afghanistan."
http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Investigates_Misconduct_Allegations_At_Kabul_Em bassy/1813916.html
the time line is known if you make any attempt to understand bama.
eyes on the prize.
that would be 2012 of course.
He would have never "supported" the afg but to have a "war" to show that he had the foreign policy chops.
This was only a device to use during elections.
That's all.
He couldn't come out and say he wanted out of both or Clintons would have killed him as a far lefty appeaser.
The timeline would be measured as infinty and not much will change.
You don't get people to give up their way of life, they may evolve out of it, but they won't do it at gunpoint or by use of firepower.
Our goal was to disrupt life for the terrorist, we have done that, move on.
Exactly. A politician is a politician is a politician.
I never voted for Obama. But this anti Obama rhetoric by the right against Obama's policies has a double standard. The right is politically partisaned and really doesn't give a crap about the horrors of war. If Bush was doing what Obama is doing (and he probably would if he was still in office) it would be far fetched to think conservatives would be as critical about the war. It is wrong for either side to be pro war or anti war based on whether their leader is in office.
That is why I did not vote for Obama. I knew he was going to have innocent people killed, and knowing I cast a vote for someone like that would bother my conscious. I have only voted once in my life for a president, when I turned 21 just to see how it was,but will never vote for an American president again. They are all murderers. It's not up to them.
Sadly,there is validity to your stance Light.It's pretty clear that the constitutional representative republic that was the USA no longer exist.Clearly it's become a corporate oligarchy,all major legislation is controlled and shaped not by congress but by lobbyist to ensure bigger profits.ie (Bush's drug bill) and Obama's forthcoming healthcare 'reform' bill will ultimately be shaped to provide huge windfalls for drug and healthcare companys,and very little reform.:rolleyes:
You mean Obama sold out????:lol:
You mean Obama sold out????:lol:
Of course,As did Bush,Clinton, Bush,Reagan, Nixon ect ect,and so will the next guy. Can't slip anything by ole Tom,he's a sharp one.:rolleyes:
PaceAdvantage
09-07-2009, 06:05 AM
Then why the hell do you guys spend so much time blathering anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin, anti-Republican, anti-Conservative rhetoric if in fact, they are simply all the same?
Kind of disingenuous of you, don't you think, Hank?
Then why the hell do you guys spend so much time blathering anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin, anti-Republican, anti-Conservative rhetoric if in fact, they are simply all the same?
Kind of disingenuous of you, don't you think, Hank?
Not really,understanding that they are all ultimately beholding to big business (400 million+ to run an effective presidential campaign) is not the same as saying that they are exactly the same.Bush, Palin trotted out as conservative leaders of the free world..... Buckley and Goldwater are spinning in there graves.
boxcar
09-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Not really,understanding that they are all ultimately beholding to big business (400 million+ to run an effective presidential campaign) is not the same as saying that they are exactly the same.Bush, Palin trotted out as conservative leaders of the free world..... Buckley and Goldwater are spinning in there graves.
But they're "same enough" (so similar) that the real, substantive differences are virtually indistinguishable, right? And that would make PA's point valid, wouldn't it.
And while I do believe the U.S. is the leader of the free world (let's say as opposed to the totalitarian world), I don't believe the U.S. has any God-given mandate to force freedom down any nation's throat. Many nations, due to complex cultural reasons and even for mass psychological reasons aren't ready for freedom. They've been conditioned for so long to believe one thing that they literally can't handle freedom. This doesn't mean that deep down, they're not yearning for it, but they just don't know how to handle an environment that is so foreign to them. Today's Russia is a great example of this. There's little difference between the old USSR and Russia. The people in today's Russia are no more free than they were under the old USSR.
Boxcar
Just look at the TRASH Obama has brought to the plate!
Jones, Wright.......really gutter-floaters all of them. Floaters.
Greyfox
09-10-2009, 04:35 PM
This morning's headlines from Afghanistan are:
Taliban presence seen across almost all Afghanistan
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSSP368794
See the above article to check their involvement.
In my opinion, what a mess this war is becoming.
Taliban are increasing their presence.
The U.S. spent over $ 400 million building a road from Kabul to Kandahar.
Michael Ware on CNN reports that the Taliban now have 3 Check Points on it.
The road is half in ruins and drivers on it are risking their lives delivering on it.
In the meanwhile, the recent election results appear to have been rigged.
Supposedly President Karzai, according to European monitors, has received hundreds of thousands of fraudlent votes. The locals no longer trust the Allied forces seeing them as behind rigging the election.
Karzai himself has made various alliances with tribal war lords in various regions.
The U.S. State Department has already said that if Karzai's vice-presidential running mate Mohammed Fahim, a suspected drug king pin, gets in he will be banned from entering the United States.
England wants out.
The Netherlands wants out.
Germany wants out.
Canada is committed to being out in 2011.
Obama is muttering about adding more troops, but who knows where his commitment is at or the funding for them is going to come from.
Poppy production decreased slightly only due to World lower demand.
In Kandahar it actually increased 35 %.
Various commentators believe that if the various foreign forces who are trying to develop a democratic government pull out, the Taliban will be coming in full force within 3 days.
What a friggin mess.
46zilzal
09-10-2009, 04:37 PM
What a friggin mess.
as both the British and Russians discovered
Greyfox
09-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Today's News:
Taliban leader Omar says foreign troops face defeat
Sep 19 02:08 PM US/Eastern
Article at:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.0a91a0c0f220d92c836201c62c27ed8 3.101&show_article=1
Greyfox
09-21-2009, 10:12 AM
Today's News (Is anyone surprised?):
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure
Full article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html
cj's dad
09-21-2009, 10:55 AM
Today's News (Is anyone surprised?):
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure
Full article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html
Confidential ?!?
All over the internet, and airwaves.
I'd love to know the ulterior motive for this "leak" !!
robert99
09-21-2009, 11:00 AM
Today's News (Is anyone surprised?):
McChrystal: More Forces or 'Mission Failure'
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009
The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict "will likely result in failure
Full article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html
Can only wonder why it takes 8 years to find this out.
How can a 6th Century ad-hoc army consistently outwit NATO?
Why can NATO soldiers be trained up in a matter of months, and to fight from as young as 18 years old, whilst it is still taking 8 years to train an Afghan army to defend its own country?
Would not the NATO soldiers be better off employed in defending the threat at home rather than in the middle of some far off desert wasteland?
boxcar
09-21-2009, 11:03 AM
I'm still waiting for all the anti-war protests to break out. The peaceniks are sure slow to act when a Dim is in office, aren't they?
Boxcar
ArlJim78
09-21-2009, 11:44 AM
I'm still waiting for all the anti-war protests to break out. The peaceniks are sure slow to act when a Dim is in office, aren't they?
Boxcar
don't hold your breath, that was all phony righteous indignation that they displayed towards Bush. What happened to the drumbeat to get rid of the horrible Patriot act which was supposedly put in place so Bush could spy on Americans? it's funny how those protestations have now receded into the woodwork.
Midget Pundit Denis Kucinich told Fox yesterday that he thought the just revealed terror plot was a political move by the FBI because congress is readying to end some parts of the PA. When asked if the PA enabled us to discover this plot, he rambles on and on, never answering the question. When asked point blank if he could guarantee that we would be as safe from a terror attack without the PA as with it, he against dodged the questions and rambled on and on, spining, side-stepping, changing the subject, getting surly....really dunce. Jamie Colby repeatedly asked him the question and he reufused to answer. Real trustworhty fellow, that like snake,
BTW, OBama is coming to Troy in upstate NY today, and FUBO signs, shirts and stickers are heading that way.........many, many of them.
46zilzal
09-21-2009, 01:19 PM
Would not the NATO soldiers be better off employed in defending the threat at home rather than in the middle of some far off desert wasteland?
good point.......but then the arms dealers might be left out in the cold
Black Ruby
09-21-2009, 01:23 PM
Midget Pundit Denis Kucinich told Fox yesterday that he thought the just revealed terror plot was a political move by the FBI because congress is readying to end some parts of the PA. When asked if the PA enabled us to discover this plot, he rambles on and on, never answering the question. When asked point blank if he could guarantee that we would be as safe from a terror attack without the PA as with it, he against dodged the questions and rambled on and on, spining, side-stepping, changing the subject, getting surly....really dunce. Jamie Colby repeatedly asked him the question and he reufused to answer. Real trustworhty fellow, that like snake,
BTW, OBama is coming to Troy in upstate NY today, and FUBO signs, shirts and stickers are heading that way.........many, many of them.
In the summer of 2001, wasn't Bush II warned of an impending terror attack using airplanes, before there was a "Patriot Act" or a dept of Fatherland...er, Homeland Security? Isn't that dept now the biggest bureaucracy we have?
OK, since you know it all about national security, I'll ask YOU the question-
will we be safer without the PA than we are with it?
A general warning and specific facts, you know, like names, addresses, times....that kind of thing - are two very different things.
If we would be safer, that is all the elf had to say, but he couldn't. Because he knows we will not be. THAT was the point of the thread.
PaceAdvantage
09-21-2009, 04:56 PM
In the summer of 2001, wasn't Bush II warned of an impending terror attack using airplanes, before there was a "Patriot Act" or a dept of Fatherland...er, Homeland Security? Isn't that dept now the biggest bureaucracy we have?And what exactly could he have done? Grounded all air traffic for months?
Requested that the WTC be lowered into the ground on its built-in hydrolic lifts?
I mean, seriously...how long did it take post-9/11 to improve security at all the major airports? How long did it take to establish everything that was put into place post 9/11?
Do you actually think that between the summer of 2001 and September of 2001 (what is that, like a month or two), something could have been done to stop what happened on 9/11?
Maybe if the folks working Logan Airport (in Boston MASS) were properly screening for weapons such as box cutters, some of this could have been avoided.
I'm sure the FAA wasn't allowing people to board planes with box cutters, even back in 2001.
Try again.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.