10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
Comments
-
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well, they did govern Afghanistan at the time and knowingly housed Bin Laden and Al-Queda there. Back then I was a sophomore in highschool so I didn't really know to much about it outside of what the TV said, but weren't they refusing to allow us to send Spec Ops in after Bin Laden?
Well I'm not saying they weren't a hostile regime. Sure, they weren't on our side, but they aren't the ones who attacked us. As far as Spec Ops, I'm not sure, but do we really gotta get permission from their offbrand regime to send in spec ops to get Bin Laden? -
shootemwon wrote: »Well I'm not saying they weren't a hostile regime. Sure, they weren't on our side, but they aren't the ones who attacked us. As far as Spec Ops, I'm not sure, but do we really gotta get permission from their offbrand regime to send in spec ops to get Bin Laden?
I would guess to allow us to take him. If we caught him unless we secretly flew out of the country they could have halted it and kept him there. It wouldn't have been a good idea to fly into hostile territory anyway. More than likely the thought didn't cross the minds of the Pentagon anyway considering Clinton had special operations in there during his time looking for Bin Laden but I figured it could have been a possibility. I'll have to look into it, but the likely scenario is Bush just wanted a full out war. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »I would guess to allow us to take him. If we caught him unless we secretly flew out of the country they could have halted it and kept him there. It wouldn't have been a good idea to fly into hostile territory anyway. More than likely the thought didn't cross the minds of the Pentagon anyway considering Clinton had special operations in there during his time looking for Bin Laden but I figured it could have been a possibility. I'll have to look into it, but the likely scenario is Bush just wanted a full out war.
Yeah, I don't know much about actual tactics when it comes to sending special ops in or anything like that, but I can't imagine we actually needed to topple the Taliban and install a new government. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »You're begging me for what?
To not act like ? will be peaches and cream for Afghans just because we left. That's it. Really.
If your position is "GET OUT NOW", be honest about it. Go "We're leaving. And yea, ? will be ugly, the Afghans who helped us will get eaten alive by the Taliban, but ? it, TOUGH BREAK ? ."
I mean in 2006, my position on Iraq was "? ". But unlike the rest of the Left, I wasn't on this "We get out and Iraq will stabilize and have peace and love blah blah blah". Nope. My position was "A genocide is already happening, we can't stop it, we can't salvage the country, let's get out of the way and let the genocide happen." That's some cold-blooded ish, but that's the nature of realpolitik geopolitics son. It's an amoral enterprise that reduces millions of people to disposable pawns. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Well, they did govern Afghanistan at the time and knowingly housed Bin Laden and Al-Queda there. Back then I was a sophomore in highschool so I didn't really know to much about it outside of what the TV said, but weren't they refusing to allow us to send Spec Ops in after Bin Laden?
It went like this:
Bush: Hand over Bin Laden. Now.
Taliban: Yeah, we saw the news.......um.......yeah we'll hand him over.
Bush: OK, cool!
Taliban: But only if you let us conduct the trial.....in Afghanistan.....in our ? Sharia Law court system.
Bush: .....? ya'll ?
Of course, Bush could've just said "Okay, that's fair", bided his time, ID'd what building the trial was in, and let the elite Spec Ops gangstas run up in there like The Expendables and kidnap Osama........but that would've been smart and complex and this is Dubya we're talking about. -
eh, they let Bin Laden happily chill out in the country and they helped each other out... they weren't the same group, but we're not talking about guys that never interacted hereshootemwon wrote: »Which is why we never should have occupied the Afghanistan in the first place. Our first big mistake was acting like The Taliban and Al-Qaeda were one in the same. -
Swiffness! wrote: »vastly different from saying "Afghanistan will have peace, as soon as that mean ol' U.S leaves"
I get annoyed when I hear anti-war folks talk about bringing "peace" to Afghanistan. Like ummmm ya'll mean peace for the exiting U.S troops, right? Because that Civil War will keep on raging well after that happens. That's what gets me.
We all get that Afghans are always gonna be fighting each other, just like people everywhere are always fighting (the USA is always bombing some country or playing the world's policeman since its founding, we all see what's happening in Mexico, etc).
What the USA does not need to do is interfere with the rest of the world's problems and go bankrupt as we're doing it.
We wasted 3 trillion dollars going into Iraq according to some sources, I can see this war in Afghanistan eventually costing more than that. Interfering with the world's problems and supporting dictatorships while pretending America loves democracy is only going to bring on more terrorist attacks and less security as time goes on. -
Swiffness! wrote: »To not act like ? will be peaches and cream for Afghans just because we left. That's it. Really.
If your position is "GET OUT NOW", be honest about it. Go "We're leaving. And yea, ? will be ugly, the Afghans who helped us will get eaten alive by the Taliban, but ? it, TOUGH BREAK ? ."
I mean in 2006, my position on Iraq was "? ". But unlike the rest of the Left, I wasn't on this "We get out and Iraq will stabilize and have peace and love blah blah blah". Nope. My position was "A genocide is already happening, we can't stop it, we can't salvage the country, let's get out of the way and let the genocide happen." That's some cold-blooded ish, but that's the nature of realpolitik geopolitics son. It's an amoral enterprise that reduces millions of people to disposable pawns.
Oh trust I already know Afghans are still gonna be at each other's throats as soon as we leave, but I'm tired of America spending its hard earned money (?) on problems that don't really involve us. There's a ? war going on in the Congo RIGHT NOW, and nobody cares. So why should we care that the Taliban will take over Afghanistan once our troops leave?
It's not like Sept 11th was planned in Afghanistan.....it was planned in Germany with people from mostly Saudi Arabia.
Let's get the ? out of there and let the savages be savages. -
eh, they let Bin Laden happily chill out in the country and they helped each other out... they weren't the same group, but we're not talking about guys that never interacted here
I give you that, but 10 years is way too long for any war.
Wars come to an end someday, don't they? -
kingblaze84 wrote: »We wasted 3 trillion dollars going into Iraq according to some sources, I can see this war in Afghanistan eventually costing more than that.
Keep in mind that we had to pay to rebuild Iraq (our construction efforts in Afghanistan are a joke in comparison) and we had waaaay more troops up in there. According to most sources, Iraq has cost at least double what Afghanistan has.
And those multi-trillion estimates are the ones that include future medical costs for the Veterans. I doubt you can neatly divide THOSE numbers into "this is for Iraq, this is for Afghanistan". -
Swiffness! wrote: »Keep in mind that we had to pay to rebuild Iraq (our construction efforts in Afghanistan are a joke in comparison) and we had waaaay more troops up in there. According to most sources, Iraq has cost at least double what Afghanistan has.
And those multi-trillion estimates are the ones that include future medical costs for the Veterans. I doubt you can neatly divide THOSE numbers into "this is for Iraq, this is for Afghanistan".
Either way, that's 3 trillion dollars we could have spent right here, building up our infrastructure. Instead, we wasted it on a country that's gonna be our enemy in another 20 years.
Iraq is already developing relationships with America's 2nd worst enemy now, Iran. -
Yeah, I understood that to be Bush's point, and he went on to say that it therefor makes them no different from the terrorists. I understand what he was saying, but I don't agree. The Taliban may have been cool with our enemies but they weren't our enemies. Now they are, because we treated them as if they were our enemies.eh, they let Bin Laden happily chill out in the country and they helped each other out... they weren't the same group, but we're not talking about guys that never interacted here
America doesn't need to go out looking for new enemies. We have plenty without us even trying.. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Wars come to an end someday, don't they?
"You can't even call this a war. Wars end."
-Ellis Carver -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Iraq is already developing relationships with America's 2nd worst enemy now, Iran.
already? lol u late
Iraq was in Iran's pocket the moment Saddam fell. ? Bush. -
well, let's be fair: it was based on prior work that was planned and tested in various locations; it was discussed and planned in Afghanistan, and guys in Germany (those Saudis) got on board and took it to the next level. i would say it WAS planned in Afghanistan as far as the "let's do this 9/11 thing" goes, but obviously there was some work that didn't happen therekingblaze84 wrote: »It's not like Sept 11th was planned in Afghanistan.....it was planned in Germany with people from mostly Saudi Arabia.
but the war's about getting al-Qaeda out of their safe haven and all that
i guess what i would say is that there's a difference between saying "i think this conflict in Afghanistan has gone on too long" and "x number of years is too long for a war." the former is more about the conflict than an arbitrary figure, you know? yeah, you should have an end game at least planned out.kingblaze84 wrote: »I give you that, but 10 years is way too long for any war. Wars come to an end someday, don't they?
also, and this is going to sound harsh, but it hasn't been 10 years in Afghanistan. it'll be a 10-year-old conflict on October 7th, 2011
i think part of what gets overlooked is that the Taliban and the US weren't avoiding disagreement before the conflict; they engendered a lot of ill will with us (and others) for their manner of conquering and running Afghanistan. frankly, i think the inaccurate idea that "we funding the Taliban" makes people overlook this (although maybe not in your case)shootemwon wrote: »Yeah, I understood that to be Bush's point, and he went on to say that it therefor makes them no different from the terrorists. I understand what he was saying, but I don't agree. The Taliban may have been cool with our enemies but they weren't our enemies. Now they are, because we treated them as if they were our enemies.
Vietnam was not a war with guerrillas; the VC were essentially done as a combat force 4 years before we ended combat operations there. Vietnam involved fighting a large-scale war against a conventional military that had sanctuaries to operate from and superpower backing.This is another Vietnam without the 10's of thousands of dead soldiers...
just because a dude wore black pajamas and shot at Charlie Sheen in Platoon, it doesn't mean this is the same conflict -
SMH at Janklow doing the military industrial complex's bidding. You do realize Americans are not winning the war on terror right now right?
Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.....all countries America is either hitting hard or planning to hit hard in the future, all have populations that hate America right now. Anti-American protests are happening there all the time and you believe staying in Afghanistan is gonna make us safer. LMAO.....damn you fell for the corporations (who want the Middle East's minerals and oil reserves) and special interests' (the governments of the world who want in on the business' plans) propaganda HARD.
I salute your loyalty to world wide criminal syndicates who happen to own most of the world's money (most of it stolen in some way), but I will come back hear with some evidence of what I'm talking about. I'm gonna play some Fallout: New Vegas now.....I'll be back -
Swiffness! wrote: »already? lol u late
Iraq was in Iran's pocket the moment Saddam fell. ? Bush.
Yeah you're right.....officials warned Bush that Iran would gain the most from an American invasion of Iraq, and he didn't listen.
He listened more to the corporations (Halliburton and Exxon) that promised him and the Bush family millions if they would go along with their wishes to get Iraq's resources.
Here are some of the companies that have benefitted GREATLY from the war in Iraq.....and are likely to be benefitting from the war in Afghanistan as well.
http://media.www.leprovoc.com/media/storage/paper453/news/2007/02/14/Viewpoint/Big-Companies.Are.Making.Big.Profits.Off.The.War.In.Iraq-2726270.shtml
An examination of President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal indicates few will benefit from the Iraq war. Proving Paul Wolfowitz's $40 billion total estimate of the Iraq war cost misled the American people, the President has issued a new $626 billion proposal (for one year) on behalf of the Pentagon. Problematically, the proposal places the burden on the lower and middle classes. Under the proposal, Bush would cut Medicaid by $5 billion, Medicare by $36 billion, would leave insufficient funds for schools, cut the department of labor by $11 billion, and cut the department of transportation by $13.2 billion. According to Progressive Magazine, "Bush's budget would give people with incomes of more than $1 million an average tax cut of $162,000 a year by 2012… Here's another way of looking at [it]: The top 1 percent would enjoy 31 percent of the tax cuts, the bottom 40 percent just 4 percent."
With the National Intelligence Estimate's assertions that conditions in Iraq are in fact "worse than civil war" and that the "War on Terrorism" has "played a role in spawning a new generation of Islamic radicalism causing the terrorist threat to increase since September 11, 2001" (we're no safer at home), with the 3126 dead soldiers (up 49 from the last edition of the Provoc) and with over 61,000 dead Iraqi civilians, one naturally questions who's actually benefiting from this war?
Journalist Robert Greenwald suggests the benefactors of Bush's war on terror are the corporations who provide more than 100,000 civilian contractors from Kuwait to Baghdad, reaping enormous financial gains. Among them: Parsons Corp, $5.3 billion for engineering and construction; DynCorp International: $1.9 billion for police training; Blackwater Security Counseling: $21 million to provide private security for Paul Bremer; Transatlantic Traders: $5 million for surveillance aircraft. In all, 40 cents out of every dollar that Congress controls now goes to contractors. Second to United States military, private contractors vastly out-number every other nation's troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. As an example of profiteering, Titan Corporation CEO Gene Ray has enjoyed $47 million in personal income since the war started.
---Do people STIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL wonder why American companies have so much dominance around the world? ? , I hope not. The government's plans to dominate resources around the world are getting more and more blatant everyday. -
Corporations DOMINATE American foreign policy today......Democrats and Republicans care more about millions for their family than the fiscal health of the United States.
These politicians would rather bankrupt the nation than take care of its own people. -
Its less of a war and more of a skirmish or military conflict. Like Vietnam
-
what mastermind would even start such a senseless ill-thought out thing as this???
-
? the US tacpayers and troops
How you gonna speak of US interests and the economy when thousands of women and children(nobody gives a ? about men lol) have died by the direct influence of US bombings? this is one of the most brutal conflicts the US once again is participating in and which should make u feel ashamed, this should go down in US history books as yet another unjust war with sluaghterings of many civilians....but you know the propahanda machine got y'all ? 's by the nuts etc
Nothing but war crimes and severe assualts on human rights....how you gonna talk that right? people hate the US for the crimes they commit and then pretend they A; did not commit, B: were okay to commit. C: was in Us interest lol
U know how many children have died because of US interests? Take some responsiblity, don't pretend it didn't/doesn't happen. -
what mastermind would even start such a senseless ill-thought out thing as this???
At the time most of america public cried out for war. -
well, let's be fair: it was based on prior work that was planned and tested in various locations; it was discussed and planned in Afghanistan, and guys in Germany (those Saudis) got on board and took it to the next level. i would say it WAS planned in Afghanistan as far as the "let's do this 9/11 thing" goes, but obviously there was some work that didn't happen there
but the war's about getting al-Qaeda out of their safe haven and all that
There are only 50 to 100 Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan.....so we should continue to waste billions to trillions of dollars to fight Al-Qaeda, while we got more than 10 thousand MS-13 gang bangers in the USA alone? America loses more people to gang violence every year than we do to terrorism. You scare very easily I see.
Your priorities are all ? up. -
janklow
My reference to 'VN without the 10's of thousands' of dead soldiers had nothing whatsoever to do with your analysis,let alone that snide little closing remark of yours. Btw I've told you on several occasions our military CANNOT defeat this kind of enemy e.g.,insurgents, psychological warfare type tactics.....NO brute fire power can defeat that tactic without major unintended consequences. (civilian casualties)
I don't know why it is so hard for politicians to understand this.....you can't fight an ideology with an army, only a change of foreign policy will do the work against terrorism.
Trillions of dollars are being wasted for nothing, and now we have idiots out there advocating even more war. It's becoming more and more obvious now all these wars have nothing to do with terror and EVERYTHING to do with taking resources and "improving" the economy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/david-broder-war-with-ira_n_777013.html
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
---It will be fun to see how bloodthirsty Republicans will become once they take control of the House tomorrow. -
? the US tacpayers and troops
How you gonna speak of US interests and the economy when thousands of women and children(nobody gives a ? about men lol) have died by the direct influence of US bombings? this is one of the most brutal conflicts the US once again is participating in and which should make u feel ashamed, this should go down in US history books as yet another unjust war with sluaghterings of many civilians....but you know the propahanda machine got y'all ? 's by the nuts etc
Nothing but war crimes and severe assualts on human rights....how you gonna talk that right? people hate the US for the crimes they commit and then pretend they A; did not commit, B: were okay to commit. C: was in Us interest lol
U know how many children have died because of US interests? Take some responsiblity, don't pretend it didn't/doesn't happen.
If it was up to me, all politicians that advocate the mass slaughter of civilians (which would be 95% of American ones) would fight the wars themselves with their children, no matter how young.
Once they see their 5 year olds burned with white phosphorus the way kids all over Iraq and Afghanistan an are being burned with white phosphorus, I'm sure they wouldn't be in such a rush to go to war.
Of course though, you also gotta understand American politicians are part of clubs that have ceremonies that think child sacrifice is a funny thing (Skull and Bones, with the Bush crime family being its most famous members, along with John Kerry, Reagan, and Nixon).
