10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
Comments
-
i decided not to read 12 pages of this ? , but basically if we just quit now or anytime prior to this point, we would look terrible, and weak. it wouldnt quite be a loss like Vietnam, but it wouldnt really be a win. pride is a pretty big thing in America. really the only type of President who makes bold moves are Republicans generally, therefore that type of pull-out before victory would never happen under Obama, and of course for this specific war it would never happen because a Republican started it.
-
lol it's official, the mercenaries + US troops and leaving untill atleast 2014
-
let me highlight a couple of reasons from your article that indicate your continued use of "kicking our ass" is inaccurate:
"filtering back in as coalition forces escalate operations in the province's rural areas."
"troops cleared village after village during the summer"
"insurgents are less likely to engage foreign militaries, and instead have concentrated their efforts on softer targets, including Afghan police and government officials."
"insurgents found ways to detour checkpoints."
i know you want to keep repeating "kicking our ass" because you're unwilling to acknowledge any aspect of your argument isn't correct, but the fact is, if they were kicking our ass, they wouldn't be avoiding fights and going after Afghan officials, they'd simply be fighting the US forces straight on. do you not remember when the Taliban was successfully fighting in Afghanistan in the 1990s? they weren't detouring around checkpoints to chase after government officials.
LOL........Americans are losing lives in Afghanistan, and our major offensives all throughout the nation has failed miserably. The Taliban has a strong presence in MOST of the country.
We are NOT winning in Afghanistan, and it is very clear Americans do not have the upper hand there. Figuratively or literally, they are kicking American ass there. Militarily, no, but they have the advantage so far BY FAR. How many times do I have to tell you that?
We have yet to destroy or tame the Taliban, along with their insurgent allies. They are growing in numbers. Do you know what the word growing means? I hope so, cuz you don't seem to comprehend the disaster this war is thus far. There are rumors America will be there until 2014.....yep, America is losing this war. BADLY.
Stop living in denial, you look silly in this thread. Oh and by the way, most voters here agree with me = ) -
lol it's official, the mercenaries + US troops and leaving untill atleast 2014
The same corporations that love the conflict in the Congo are smiling now..........
Multinational mineral companies and their clients will love the NATO and American protection. Good for them. Also good for Bin Laden, who is using the never ending war in Afghanistan as a successful recruiting tool.
Bad for American soldiers dying for NOTHING. What a shame. -
i decided not to read 12 pages of this ? , but basically if we just quit now or anytime prior to this point, we would look terrible, and weak. it wouldnt quite be a loss like Vietnam, but it wouldnt really be a win. pride is a pretty big thing in America. really the only type of President who makes bold moves are Republicans generally, therefore that type of pull-out before victory would never happen under Obama, and of course for this specific war it would never happen because a Republican started it.
I hope you realize 60+ % of all Americans and people worldwide in general oppose this war. Obama's approval ratings would see a HUUUUGE boost if he announced tomorrow he's going to withdraw all troops from the hellhole known as Afghanistan.
Let the Taliban have it......if they strike again, we bomb them the ? out, again. Damn.....I should be running for president. -
let me break this down for you.kingblaze84 wrote: »We are NOT winning in Afghanistan, and it is very clear Americans do not have the upper hand there. Figuratively or literally, they are kicking American ass there. Militarily, no, but they have the advantage so far BY FAR. How many times do I have to tell you that?
you have repeatedly posted things along the lines of "the Taliban is kicking American ass."
i repeatedly respond with "they're not militarily doing so; back it up if you think otherwise."
so you're now going to pretend that you have to repeatedly tell me that... and then acknowledge, in this post, "Figuratively or literally, they are kicking American ass there. Militarily, no?"
if you AGREE with me that they're not militarily kicking our ass, which has been my ENTIRE argument ... what the ? are you disputing? what are you having to repeat?
furthermore, if you AGREE with me that they're not militarily kicking our ass... then how are they LITERALLY kicking American ass?
the person that seems to be most in denial is the guy who apparently decided to sneak in a statement agreeing with me while arguing the entire time.kingblaze84 wrote: »Stop living in denial, you look silly in this thread. Oh and by the way, most voters here agree with me -
let me break this down for you.
you have repeatedly posted things along the lines of "the Taliban is kicking American ass."
i repeatedly respond with "they're not militarily doing so; back it up if you think otherwise."
so you're now going to pretend that you have to repeatedly tell me that... and then acknowledge, in this post, "Figuratively or literally, they are kicking American ass there. Militarily, no?"
if you AGREE with me that they're not militarily kicking our ass, which has been my ENTIRE argument ... what the ? are you disputing? what are you having to repeat?
furthermore, if you AGREE with me that they're not militarily kicking our ass... then how are they LITERALLY kicking American ass?
the person that seems to be most in denial is the guy who apparently decided to sneak in a statement agreeing with me while arguing the entire time.
Fine, we are on the same page.
We can both agree America is losing the war in general. Great. We can stop arguing now I hope. -
no, see, we're not going to stop arguing when you insist on declaring my position on the topic without having the courtesy to acknowledge the issues with what you've been arguing the entire time.kingblaze84 wrote: »Fine, we are on the same page. We can both agree America is losing the war in general. Great. We can stop arguing now I hope. -
Afghanistan is the new Vietnam.
-
Afghanistan is the new Vietnam.
It's looking like this more and more. Props to Obama for letting corporations and George W Bush's philosophies dictate our foreign policy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/new-afghan-war-plans-coul_n_786352.html#comments
New Afghan war plans could cost US taxpayers an extra $125 billion
At the NATO summit, President Obama's push to soften troop withdrawal deadlines could bring remaining war costs to $413 billion, according to one independent analyst.
As leaders at the NATO summit in Lisbon meet this weekend to discuss strategy in Afghanistan, US war planners have been signaling that troop withdrawals set to begin in 2011 will be mostly symbolic and that the handover to Afghan forces in 2014 is "aspirational."
--Yep, we'll be there until 2014, at least. This war will last 14 years minimum. Haha wow. -
no. what needs to happen is that people need to not let the length/popularity of the war cause them to parallel it with Vietnam.kingblaze84 wrote: »It's looking like this more and more.
as always, let's remember that the war with Vietnam featured the US fighting the conventional military of North Vietnam while said nation enjoyed open and notable support from at least one superpower. -
no. what needs to happen is that people need to not let the length/popularity of the war cause them to parallel it with Vietnam.
as always, let's remember that the war with Vietnam featured the US fighting the conventional military of North Vietnam while said nation enjoyed open and notable support from at least one superpower.
You're delusional if you don't think there are many similarities between the failed Vietnam War and the failing Afghan war.
We were losing Vietnam for a long time, and we have been losing the war in Afghanistan for a long time.
Stop thinking out of your ass and think with your brain, you're coming across as really stupid right now. -
you're delusional if you don't acknowledge the notable differences. wow, what a serious debate we're having!kingblaze84 wrote: »You're delusional if you don't think there are many similarities between the failed Vietnam War and the failing Afghan war.
oddly enough, when we left Vietnam in 1973, South Vietnam was still an independent nation. whereas with the nation that's attacking Afghanistan... wait, no, that's another difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan.kingblaze84 wrote: »We were losing Vietnam for a long time, and we have been losing the war in Afghanistan for a long time.
so i see we've gone back to the part of your "argument" where, because you don't have an argument, you just want to talk ? . this is, of course, the kind of position that tells me you're not qualified to call anyone stupid.kingblaze84 wrote: »Stop thinking out of your ass and think with your brain, you're coming across as really stupid right now. -
you're delusional if you don't acknowledge the notable differences. wow, what a serious debate we're having!
oddly enough, when we left Vietnam in 1973, South Vietnam was still an independent nation. whereas with the nation that's attacking Afghanistan... wait, no, that's another difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan.
so i see we've gone back to the part of your "argument" where, because you don't have an argument, you just want to talk ? . this is, of course, the kind of position that tells me you're not qualified to call anyone stupid.
Oh man, you truly are delusional.
There are several differences between Vietnam and Afghanistan, but there are PLENTY of similarities.
Among them........a long war without any resolution to the conflict, an impatient, disapproving American public frustrated with the length of time spent in the nation, and money being wasted constantly that could be spent here in the USA.
And you have the nerve to tell me there aren't many similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam. LMAO........here read this link, you might learn something from it. Hopefully your brain can actually comprehend what's actually being said, since most people in this thread so far get it, and you still amazingly don't. George McGovern lost against Reagan badly, but he is still a very intelligent man.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102596.html
We have had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for several years, and we have employed an even larger number of mercenaries (or "contractors," as they're called these days). As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon.
Why do we send young Americans to risk life and limb on behalf of such worthless regimes? The administration says we need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the major al-Qaeda forces are in Pakistan.
The insurgency in Afghanistan is led by the Taliban. Its target is its own government, not our government. Its only quarrel with us is that its members see us using our troops and other resources to prop up a government they despise. Adding more U.S. forces will fuel the Taliban further.
Starting in 1979, the Soviets tried to control events in Afghanistan for nearly a decade. They lost 15,000 troops, and an even larger number of soldiers were crippled or wounded. Their treasury was exhausted, and the Soviet Union collapsed. A similar fate has befallen other powers that have tried to work their will on Afghanistan's collection of mountain warlords and tribes.
We have the best officers and combat troops in the world, but they are weary after nearly a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why waste these fine soldiers any longer?
Even if we had a good case for a war in Afghanistan, we simply cannot afford to wage it. With a $12 trillion debt and a serious economic recession, this is not a time for unnecessary wars abroad. We should bring our soldiers home before any more of them are killed or wounded -- and before our national debt explodes.
In 1964, Johnson asked several senators who were not running for reelection that year if we would campaign for him. He assured those of us who were opposed to the war in Vietnam that he had no plans to expand the U.S. presence. Johnson won the election in a landslide, telling voters he sought no wider war. "We are not about to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," he assured during his campaign.
But once elected, Johnson began to pour in more troops until American forces reached exceeded 500,000. All told, more than 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and many more were crippled in mind and body. This is to say nothing of the nearly 2 million Vietnamese who died under U.S. bombardment.
Johnson had a brilliant record in domestic affairs, but Vietnam choked his dream of a Great Society. The war had become unbearable to so many Americans -- civilian and military -- that the landslide victor of 1964 did not seek reelection four years later.
Obama has the capacity to be a great president; I just hope that Afghanistan will not tarnish his message of change. After half a century of Cold War and hot wars, it is time to rebuild our great and troubled land. By closing down the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can divert the vast sums being spent there to revitalizing our own nation.
In 1972, I called on my fellow citizens to "Come home, America." Today, I commend these words to our new president. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Obama's approval ratings would see a HUUUUGE boost if he announced tomorrow he's going to withdraw all troops from the hellhole known as Afghanistan.
"HUUUUGE" huh
so not just a mere couple points, but a "HUUUUGE" boost
ok
OH, and what do you think would happen to those numbers when the Taliban retakes Kabul and starts executing Afghani women in the soccer stadium again?
Or do you think the Fall of Saigon helped Gerald Ford's popularity? (since we keep comparing ? to Nam) -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Oh man, you truly are delusional.kingblaze84 wrote: »you might learn something from it. Hopefully your brain can actually comprehend what's actually being saidkingblaze84 wrote: »George McGovern lost against Reagan badly, but he is still a very intelligent man.
lol................... -
Swiffness! wrote: »"HUUUUGE" huh
so not just a mere couple points, but a "HUUUUGE" boost
ok
OH, and what do you think would happen to those numbers when the Taliban retakes Kabul and starts executing Afghani women in the soccer stadium again?
Or do you think the Fall of Saigon helped Gerald Ford's popularity? (since we keep comparing ? to Nam)
Most Americans are opposed to the war in Afghanistan now, over 60%. It would help him win the middle and liberal bases that are ? off royally over this war not being over yet. I'm sure he would catch some flak if the Taliban did take over again, but it would be mild compared to the flak he's catching now over this never ending war. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm sure he would catch some flak if the Taliban did take over again, but it would be mild compared to the flak he's catching now over this never ending war.
Completely disagree.
Cuz, you seem to be under the impression that the country is all super up in arms over Afghanistan because some poll said 60%. I say ? . If the country is as opposed as you claim it is, where's the marches on Washington? Where's the protest songs? Where's the Code Pink ? interrupting Obama town halls? Why wasn't Afghanistan a factor in the election? Why is it rarely front page news?
Face it: the average American is more concerned about their fantasy football team than they are about Afghanistan. ? , the only reason people worried about Iraq in 06 like they did was because A) Bush was stupid enough to constantly brag about winning in Iraq and make it the focus of his administration in EVERY ? press appearance,
Iraqi militants were doing huge hundreds-dead terror attacks like every day son, C) White civilians were being beheaded on internet videos and YOU KNOW 1 dead white person is worth like 10,000 dead brown people in the news. Compare that to Afghanistan where: A) Obama barely talks about it, the Taliban isn't doing large scale massacres every day, C) White civilians are smart enough to stay the ? out of Afghanistan
Oh and with all this ? you been talkin about OVER 60 PERCENT, why does the latest poll about Afghanistan, a poll causing news headlines of "More Americans oppose war in Afghanistan", read ummmmmmmm.....
"Fifty percent of those surveyed said the United States should not be involved in Afghanistan, with 44 percent supporting the US military presence, said the poll."
Word? 50/44? Gee, that doesn't sound like the massive anti-war sentiment that you've been bragging about in this thread.
What about the last poll they did? The poll before this new one?
"In a September 9 poll by Quinnipiac University, 49 percent of Americans endorsed the war effort, while 41 percent expressed opposition."
Wait, WHAT? But.....but......you said......... -
Swiffness! wrote: »Completely disagree.
Cuz, you seem to be under the impression that the country is all super up in arms over Afghanistan because some poll said 60%. I say ? . If the country is as opposed as you claim it is, where's the marches on Washington? Where's the protest songs? Where's the Code Pink ? interrupting Obama town halls? Why wasn't Afghanistan a factor in the election? Why is it rarely front page news?
Face it: the average American is more concerned about their fantasy football team than they are about Afghanistan. ? , the only reason people worried about Iraq in 06 like they did was because A) Bush was stupid enough to constantly brag about winning in Iraq and make it the focus of his administration in EVERY ? press appearance, Iraqi militants were doing huge hundreds-dead terror attacks like every day son, C) White civilians were being beheaded on internet videos and YOU KNOW 1 dead white person is worth like 10,000 dead brown people in the news. Compare that to Afghanistan where: A) Obama barely talks about it, the Taliban isn't doing large scale massacres every day, C) White civilians are smart enough to stay the ? out of Afghanistan
Oh and with all this ? you been talkin about OVER 60 PERCENT, why does the latest poll about Afghanistan, a poll causing news headlines of "More Americans oppose war in Afghanistan", read ummmmmmmm.....
"Fifty percent of those surveyed said the United States should not be involved in Afghanistan, with 44 percent supporting the US military presence, said the poll."
Word? 50/44? Gee, that doesn't sound like the massive anti-war sentiment that you've been bragging about in this thread.
What about the last poll they did? The poll before this new one?
"In a September 9 poll by Quinnipiac University, 49 percent of Americans endorsed the war effort, while 41 percent expressed opposition."
Wait, WHAT? But.....but......you said.........
Those are some interesting poll numbers, but I went by these polls, which I admit are not the most up to date, but are still from this year of 2010.
That Quinnipiac poll you showed also showed 62% of Democrats oppose the war, compared to 54% of independents. But anyway, here are the polls I personally went by
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/poll-most-americans-oppose-war-in-afghanistan-1.2228067
The numbers could be ominous for the president and his Democratic Party, already feeling the heat for high unemployment, a slow economic recovery and a $1.3 trillion federal deficit. Strong dissent - 58 percent oppose the war - could depress Democratic turnout when the party desperately needs to energize its supporters for midterm congressional elections.
---And here is another poll from this year that shows strong opposition to this failing war......
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/17/poll-opposition-to-iraq-afghanistan-wars-reach-all-time-high/
Unpopularity with the war in Afghanistan also reached an all-time high in CNN polling with 62 percent saying they oppose it. Moreover, confidence in the Afghan government is even lower than it is for the Iraqi government. Seven in 10 Americans are not confident that Hamid Karzai's government can handle the situation there.
---Your polls and my polls are months apart, but MOST polls show a solid majority of Americans are opposed to the war in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is not as huge an issue as the economy or the deficit, but you would be a fool if you don't think the war is bothering most Americans. The anti-war protests are not as heated under Obama as they were under Bush, but that's mostly because Obama was smart enough to withdraw most combat troops from Iraq. If you want to support the war in Afghanistan, knock yourself the ? out.
I'm gonna join the MAJORITY of most Americans and continue opposing this stupid war that's bringing down Obama's legacy. Obama is a ? ? fraud, ? HIM.
LOL at you relying on one polling company. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm gonna join the MAJORITY of most Americans and continue opposing this stupid war that's bringing down Obama's legacy. Obama is a ? ? fraud, ? HIM.
Cosign, we need to save this ? ? fraud's legacy. -
shootemwon wrote: »Cosign, we need to save this ? ? fraud's legacy.
LMFAO *dead* -
the only real comparison here is the length of time. you can say any war is money wasted that could have been spent here, if you want to, and you can say the same about the public, which always becomes disenchanted with wars after a certain point of time. these are not unique comparisons.kingblaze84 wrote: »Among them........a long war without any resolution to the conflict, an impatient, disapproving American public frustrated with the length of time spent in the nation, and money being wasted constantly that could be spent here in the USA.
yeah, because you apparently don't want to look at the differences between the conflicts and simply say "we've been there a long time."kingblaze84 wrote: »And you have the nerve to tell me there aren't many similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam. LMAO...
except that in Vietnam, the insurgent forces were essentially wiped out by 1968, and the majority of the fighting from 1969-1973 was between the US military and the conventional forces of North Vietnam. but surely that's not a notable difference?kingblaze84 wrote: »We have had tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan for several years, and we have employed an even larger number of mercenaries (or "contractors," as they're called these days). As in Vietnam, the insurgent forces are stronger than ever, and the Afghan government is as corrupt as the one we backed in Saigon.
so actually, this would seem to be another difference, in that i don't think anyone ran on the platform of "we're not sending troops to Afghanistan." i suppose perhaps Obama said he would eventually remove them.kingblaze84 wrote: »In 1964, Johnson asked several senators who were not running for reelection that year if we would campaign for him. He assured those of us who were opposed to the war in Vietnam that he had no plans to expand the U.S. presence. Johnson won the election in a landslide, telling voters he sought no wider war. "We are not about to send American boys nine or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," he assured during his campaign.
what else about this article parallels Vietnam and Afghanistan? -
the only real comparison here is the length of time. you can say any war is money wasted that could have been spent here, if you want to, and you can say the same about the public, which always becomes disenchanted with wars after a certain point of time. these are not unique comparisons.
yeah, because you apparently don't want to look at the differences between the conflicts and simply say "we've been there a long time."
except that in Vietnam, the insurgent forces were essentially wiped out by 1968, and the majority of the fighting from 1969-1973 was between the US military and the conventional forces of North Vietnam. but surely that's not a notable difference?
so actually, this would seem to be another difference, in that i don't think anyone ran on the platform of "we're not sending troops to Afghanistan." i suppose perhaps Obama said he would eventually remove them.
what else about this article parallels Vietnam and Afghanistan?
The unpopularity of the war and the long length of it are my chief reasons this war strongly resembles the war in Vietnam. Notice I did not say it is just like Vietnam. I said it is strongly resembling it, if you can't see that, you're blind.
Some parts of the USA look like 3rd world cities, and you still think it's a good idea to spend hundreds of more billions in that ? forsaken part of the world. You are not a very smart man. -
Some people are whispering that a Democrat may challenge Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2012........ much of it because of the war in Afghanistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/stan-greenberg-afghanista_b_787470.html
Stan Greenberg: Afghanistan War Likely Cause of Primary Challenge
Press reports have suggested that Administration officials are trying to make Democratic voters forget that the Administration promised to start drawing down troops from Afghanistan in July 2011 by "pivoting" to the "aspirational goal" that "most" U.S. "combat troops" will be withdrawn by 2014. The Administration still says it will withdraw some troops in July 2011, but press reports suggest that the Administration may try to make this a "symbolic" withdrawal, not the "serious drawdown" (as Speaker Pelosi put it) involving "a whole lot of people" (as Vice-President Biden put it) that Democrats were led to expect.
But if these press reports about Administration strategy are correct, Administration political strategists may have another think coming. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg suggests that continued escalation of the war in Afghanistan would be likely to draw a primary challenge, the Christian Science Monitor reports:
As Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg was leaving a Monitor breakfast last week, he was asked about the possibility that President Obama might face a Democratic primary challenge in 2012.
Mr. Greenberg's two-word answer: "Watch Afghanistan."
As the Monitor notes, a recent Quinnipiac University poll found that 62 percent of Democrats say US troops should not be in Afghanistan.
Note that the same Quinnipiac poll found military families split on the war, "with 49 percent backing the US role and 47 percent saying the troops should come home." That suggests significant dissent among the troops, because if every GI Jane and Joe is telling Mom and Dad that the war makes sense and the prospects are good, you wouldn't expect half of military families to say that US troops shouldn't be there. Dissenting troops tend to produce dissenting veterans. Dissenting veterans tend to produce dissenting veteran candidates for office.
If Stan Greenberg thinks a Democratic primary is a serious prospect if the escalation of the Afghanistan war continues, then that's a claim that cannot be dismissed. Greenberg has been studying elections for a long time, and is paid top dollar to be right more often than most other people.
A key reason that some folks don't take this threat very seriously yet is that when they think of a primary challenge, their first thought is: "who is the candidate?" It's a natural thought. If they can't think who the candidate is, then it doesn't seem like a serious threat.
But this misses the fact that the potential pool of credible candidates is actually quite large, and if you look back to the past, few people could have predicted well in advance who might emerge as a credible candidate.
To be a credible candidate for President, at least one of the following three attributes is minimally sufficient, in addition to being legally eligible and having a plausible message: a) you have a huge pile of money b) you are famous and have a big base of public support or c) you can rely upon the support of a big organization.
Now, of course, most Americans don't have any of these three attributes. Relative to the entire population, they are rare attributes. But relative to the fact that you only need one candidate for a primary challenge, the set of Americans who have at least one of these attributes is quite large.
How many Americans would have predicted in the summer of 1991 that a year later billionaire Ross Perot would be leading President George H. W. Bush and Governor Bill Clinton in national polls? How many Americans would have predicted in the spring of 1987 that Jesse Jackson would win seven Democratic primaries and four caucuses a year later, including Delaware, Michigan, and Vermont, leading the New York Times to call 1988 the "Year of Jackson"? How many Americans would have predicted in late November 1967 when Senator Eugene McCarthy announced his candidacy for President that he would nearly defeat incumbent President Johnson in the New Hampshire primary four months later, amidst rising Democratic discontent about Vietnam? How many Americans would have predicted in 1932, when FDR was first elected promising to balance the budget, that the threat of Huey Long's presidential candidacy would help produce the New Deal, with Roosevelt adviser Raymond Moley reporting that FDR said he wanted to "steal Long's thunder"?
This history suggests that if conditions are right, candidates are likely to emerge. Therefore, it may not be so easy to sweep President Obama's July 2011 drawdown promise into the dustbin of history. A Democratic Presidential candidate has a big megaphone. If some Americans forget that President Obama promised to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, a Democratic primary candidate is likely to remind them.
If you don't want to see this scenario play out, tell President Obama to keep his promise for a "serious drawdown" of troops in 2011.
--I hope somebody does challenge Obama in the Democratic nomination for 2012, if he or she promises to end the war in Afghanistan immediately, that person will have my full support. -
well, you also said:kingblaze84 wrote: »The unpopularity of the war and the long length of it are my chief reasons this war strongly resembles the war in Vietnam. Notice I did not say it is just like Vietnam. I said it is strongly resembling it, if you can't see that, you're blind.
--"It's looking like this more and more" as a response to "Afghanistan is the new Vietnam." slightly stronger than "strongly resembles";
--"there are many similarities between the failed Vietnam War and the failing Afghan war." so "many" is now two, or were there more similarities you don't want to try and defend?
--"there are PLENTY of similarities." this then led to a list of three, two of which, i repeat, are not unique comparisons. you can call ANY war wasted money; you will get public disenchantment in ANY war.
you're spending a lot of time declaring people to be "delusional" or "blind" if they don't agree with you ... but is there ever a point where you acknowledge the differences pointed out? or does that only go one way?
is THAT what i said, or is this just something you're adding on because you refuse to debate something without personally attacking people?kingblaze84 wrote: »Some parts of the USA look like 3rd world cities, and you still think it's a good idea to spend hundreds of more billions in that ? forsaken part of the world. You are not a very smart man.
