10 years in Afghanistan.....can we admit this war is lost and a failure now? *Poll*
Options
Comments
-
well, you also said:
--"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?
Of course there are differences between the failed war in Vietnam and the failing war in Afghanistan. American casualties were much higher in Vietnam, the anti-war movement was much more opposed to the Vietnam war, and the Vietnam war did not last as long, depending on which historian you listen to.
Regardless, at 10 years, Afghanistan is now one of the longest conflicts in American history.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afghan-war-now-longest-war-us-history/story?id=10849303
That doesn't change my basic premise that the war is a lost cause and is a waste of time at this point.
How much longer should we spend in Afghanistan Janklow? How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice? Thousands more? Millions more?
How much more debt are you willing to run up?
How many more American cities are you willing to abandon and let suffer on their own in order to reconstruct villages in Afghanistan?
How many more terrorists are you willing to create for Osama Bin Laden? Please tell me Janklow, tell me = ) -
Any theories as to why Obama is going on the same path to financial and military ruin as the USSR?
Hasn't Obama learned anything from the Russians, Brits, and Greeks all losing badly in Afghanistan? -
Princess Jihad wrote: »Americans are funny.
As an American, I agree. We're going broke, some cities here look like bombed out buildings in Liberia, and our ? politicians still think it's a good idea to reconstruct buildings thousands of miles away LOL.....
Are you an American? Are you witnessing this madness up close and personal too? -
what a shocking observation that NO ONE is disputing.kingblaze84 wrote: »Regardless, at 10 years, Afghanistan is now one of the longest conflicts in American history.
and here i thought that the current debate was over whether or not Afghanistan was just like Vietnam. how exactly does one follow from the other? because it's not like you can argue against Afghanistan without the parallel, right? wait...kingblaze84 wrote: »That doesn't change my basic premise that the war is a lost cause and is a waste of time at this point.
obviously the amount of time should be dependent on more than an arbitrary timetable. obviously there's no legitimate way to determine a "number of lives" to expend. obviously the money not spent on Afghanistan will get responsibly spent by our politicians on fixing American cities. obviously you don't want to consider whether or not there's a degree of reconstruction that benefits us and/or that we might feel some obligation to undertake. obviously UBL only started directing terrorists at the US because of this war.kingblaze84 wrote: »How much longer should we spend in Afghanistan Janklow? How many more lives are you willing to sacrifice? Thousands more? Millions more? How much more debt are you willing to run up? How many more American cities are you willing to abandon and let suffer on their own in order to reconstruct villages in Afghanistan? How many more terrorists are you willing to create for Osama Bin Laden? Please tell me Janklow, tell me = )
but actually, please tell me when you're willing to have an honest two-way debate so that there would actually be a point to debating these things, because all you seem to want to do is alternate between insults and stepping away from debates while refusing to acknowledge anything i have stated. -
what a shocking observation that NO ONE is disputing.
and here i thought that the current debate was over whether or not Afghanistan was just like Vietnam. how exactly does one follow from the other? because it's not like you can argue against Afghanistan without the parallel, right? wait...
obviously the amount of time should be dependent on more than an arbitrary timetable. obviously there's no legitimate way to determine a "number of lives" to expend. obviously the money not spent on Afghanistan will get responsibly spent by our politicians on fixing American cities. obviously you don't want to consider whether or not there's a degree of reconstruction that benefits us and/or that we might feel some obligation to undertake. obviously UBL only started directing terrorists at the US because of this war.
but actually, please tell me when you're willing to have an honest two-way debate so that there would actually be a point to debating these things, because all you seem to want to do is alternate between insults and stepping away from debates while refusing to acknowledge anything i have stated.
I have never said Afghanistan is just like Vietnam. I said there are several similarities, which are indisputable. This Afghan war is unpopular and it has lasted a very long time now, just like the Vietnam war. That is a fact. PERIOD. You can say any war can be unpopular and long, but the reality is that this war still bears several chilling similarities to Vietnam. Sorry if that bothers you!
As for your other points, I would rather American money be at least ATTEMPTED to be spent on American cities instead of a country with a hostile population. Of course American politicians are not the most responsible bunch with money, but at least the money will stay here, rather than in the hands of crooked Afghan politicians, many of whom support the Taliban privately anyway. And NO, there is no reconstruction in Afghanistan that will benefit us. Has it helped us in 10 ? years?????????!!!!!! We've been spending money there for a long time and what do we have to show for it? American deaths there are up, corruption hasn't changed, and the Taliban are INCREASING their presence in most of the country. All the major offensives the USA has planned this year have FAILED.
The American govt should not feel obligated to help an outside nation when most of its own citizens are now against the war. And no, I never once said OBL would stop hating the USA if the war in Afghanistan ended tonight. But the never ending war there is a huge recruiting tool for Osama, and it is giving Muslims plenty of reasons to call America the Great Satan. Along with our pro-Israel policy of course.....
Yep, this war is a disaster, I hope to ? you never lead a nation at war. You'd have the nation bankrupt in no time with your love of never ending wars. SMH at your brain. -
you know, you keep saying "several," and earlier you said "many," but all you really talk about is two: length and unpopularity. and i'm going to dispute the latter because it's not unique. what seems to be happening here is YOU being bothered because i don't agree with your points. this is why, of course, you cannot debate the topic without trying to fill it with personal insults.kingblaze84 wrote: »I have never said Afghanistan is just like Vietnam. I said there are several similarities, which are indisputable. This Afghan war is unpopular and it has lasted a very long time now, just like the Vietnam war. That is a fact. PERIOD. You can say any war can be unpopular and long, but the reality is that this war still bears several chilling similarities to Vietnam. Sorry if that bothers you!
instead of that, you could maybe try to clarify why "several" and "many" keeps becoming TWO. or why, if you don't want to argue it's just like Vietnam, you won't acknowledge differences between the two conflicts. and that being said...
"please tell me when you're willing to have an honest two-way debate so that there would actually be a point to debating these things, because all you seem to want to do is alternate between insults and stepping away from debates while refusing to acknowledge anything i have stated." seriously, what's the point?kingblaze84 wrote: »Yep, this war is a disaster, I hope to ? you never lead a nation at war. You'd have the nation bankrupt in no time with your love of never ending wars. SMH at your brain.
in the past i've already said you have to draw down the war, but because my position isn't "end it immediately," you go back to the usual position of demanding the war end immediately and insulting anyone who disagrees. you don't seem to want to talk about the arbitrary issues of deaths beyond throwing it out there because i think you know no specific number is especially meaningful, so it just became an emotional point to boost your position. if your argument was just "let's spend less money," fine, good, let's spend less money, but when your argument is "spend it here instead," explain how that works. the obligation factor, of course, has to do with helping Afghans, not impressing American voters, and you can disagree with it ... but oddly enough, you and i don't agree on everything on this issue. the key difference is i state my position without making some declaration of "you're stupid if you don't agree with me."
and ending the war in Afghanistan today would not change our policy on Israel, right? so why are we talking about Israel?
none of the above will mean anything because we still won't agree and you're still going to take it incredibly personally. i guess we'll do this a couple more times and then i'll close the thread? -
you know, you keep saying "several," and earlier you said "many," but all you really talk about is two: length and unpopularity. and i'm going to dispute the latter because it's not unique. what seems to be happening here is YOU being bothered because i don't agree with your points. this is why, of course, you cannot debate the topic without trying to fill it with personal insults.
instead of that, you could maybe try to clarify why "several" and "many" keeps becoming TWO. or why, if you don't want to argue it's just like Vietnam, you won't acknowledge differences between the two conflicts. and that being said...
"please tell me when you're willing to have an honest two-way debate so that there would actually be a point to debating these things, because all you seem to want to do is alternate between insults and stepping away from debates while refusing to acknowledge anything i have stated." seriously, what's the point?
in the past i've already said you have to draw down the war, but because my position isn't "end it immediately," you go back to the usual position of demanding the war end immediately and insulting anyone who disagrees. you don't seem to want to talk about the arbitrary issues of deaths beyond throwing it out there because i think you know no specific number is especially meaningful, so it just became an emotional point to boost your position. if your argument was just "let's spend less money," fine, good, let's spend less money, but when your argument is "spend it here instead," explain how that works. the obligation factor, of course, has to do with helping Afghans, not impressing American voters, and you can disagree with it ... but oddly enough, you and i don't agree on everything on this issue. the key difference is i state my position without making some declaration of "you're stupid if you don't agree with me."
and ending the war in Afghanistan today would not change our policy on Israel, right? so why are we talking about Israel?
none of the above will mean anything because we still won't agree and you're still going to take it incredibly personally. i guess we'll do this a couple more times and then i'll close the thread?
Oh best believe I don't take what you say personally. I just don't like the way you constantly ignore various portions of my responses, but it's obvious we have a difference of philosophy here. Which is fine, although I still think your philosophy is getting tons of innocent lives killed for nothing. It's only increasing bad blood in the Arab blood, but hey, so be it.
We'll see how much worse things get next year. -
Oh, and don't close this thread. Let people comment here if they want to, I'm tired of you closing my Afghanistan threads. I know other opinions may bother you, but let the people post.
-
given the way you pepper all these posts with personal attacks, i actually don't believe that.kingblaze84 wrote: »Oh best believe I don't take what you say personally.
i tend to try to go point by point, whereas i notice you seem to ignore it when i ask you to acknowledge or address something...kingblaze84 wrote: »I just don't like the way you constantly ignore various portions of my responses, but it's obvious we have a difference of philosophy here.
see, this is what i mean when i say it's obvious you're taking it personally because you're taking a shot at me there. if it's all just in fun... what's up with that?kingblaze84 wrote: »I'm tired of you closing my Afghanistan threads. I know other opinions may bother you, but let the people post.
so how many threads got closed, one? anyway, the point you seem to have missed is that it'd get closed if it's just you and i posting the same ? back and forth, over and over. this is not, incidentally, a new policy.
