|
|
|
|
|
| | The Ignored WarPage 2 of 2 (1, 2) | | I thought Obama was going to get us out of Afghanistan, and Iraq too for that matter. You mean we're still there? | |
|
late™
| | Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 24 | |
| The Ignored War
Posted: 6/30/2010 10:14:16 AM | we are chaseing the orginisation who attacked our country on 9/11...when we started.they were in iraq.....but.....the cowards fled
WTF?
Wow, ...talk about losing the plot.
if you recall bush's speach shortly after the attack..
Yes, I remember that it made about as much sense as any spoiled-brat bully threats you would hear in a playground, ...I also remember how chimp-like he looked.
...screamed for retribution.
Then why was preferential treatment given to Saudi Nationals who were allowed to fly out of the US before its own citizens were allowed to fly back, ...often weeks later. Especially when it was almost ALL Saudi Nationals who perpetrated the terrorist attack?
Well?
we are NOT fighting afganistan...we are presueing the criminals who attacked us.................but this time.........unlike viet nam........we are presueing them where ever they run to
Not fighting Afghanistan? Right, sure, ...and instead we did the right thing and went after Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan, where all the players were actually from, and where the money came from to do the deed. Osama bin Laden wasn't even suspected by law enforcement or intelligence agencies in the US, they haven't even added any related charges on his "Most Wanted" page, which is why when Afghanistan offered him up if evidence was given, ...they were ignored. The war in Afghanistan had nothing to do with 911 or OBL, ...it had to do with a failed contract tender from Unicol, ...look it up, look at the timeline.
you must also take into account............those criminals dont recognise or care about international borders......they cross back and forth the same way you'd cross a street.
Interesting, so if a convicted criminal or terrorist, (say like Luis Posada Carriles, who has been convicted of blowing up an airliner), settles down in the US, does another country has the right to bomb the shit out of the US if they don't send him to where he's charged and convicted of terrorism?
Do tell?
i dont want this...or any war anymore than anyone else...but we are in it...........and unless we are in it to win and utterly destroy our enemy......then we make a mockery of the victims of 9/11 and an even bigger mockery of every single military personel who have ever shed blood for our country.
Actually, this "mockery" has already been accomplished by the previous administration, and still happening today, ...and with the tacit approval of the credulous and ill-informed motivated by nothing other than "retribution" without any consideration for aiming it where it was deserved. The fact is, "the enemy" as you put it, was neither invaded and occupied nation, it IS a fucking ideology, and all that's been accomplished on that account is just the pouring of gasoline onto flames. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 10:18:19 AM | Hmm? Twilightslove, you have framed you question in an odd manner with a “lead-in” statement that directs the mind, leaving me in some quandary as to what purpose anyone’s answer might serve. Ignoring that, ~ my answer would be yes & no. As to why yes & no? ~ It’s been an embarrassment as the US armed Forces has been “poorly” used from the offset and the American people “poorly” served. Yet I stand in firm support of our military men and women in uniform.
That’s the short answer. How was that? Is that what you were looking for? | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 11:30:09 AM | The real ignored war is the one that happens when physically and emotionally damaged troops return home to a bureaucracy that does it's best to ignore their injuries or downplay them, a government going bankrupt, too poor to fully fund the VA, and a public that just does not want to hear about how many of the walking wounded are among us.
The 9/11 event was PNACs "new Pearl Harbor" needed to launch these oil wars. Iraq was on the Bush and PNAC table well before 9/11 and the Afghan pipeline deal turned sour just prior as well. While Afghanistan could have been justified for the Taliban/ al Qaeda connection to the 9/11 narative, Saudi Arabia did raise most of the alleged hijackers. And the US helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviets into bankruptcy.
"“Throughout the world … its agents, client states and satellites are on the defensive — on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They’re doing so on almost every continent populated by man — in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America … [They are] freedom fighters.” President Ronald Reagan on March 8, 1985
We armed, aided and abetted Saddam Hussein as well when he served our empire. When we lost control of our former puppets, new puppets were needed to be installed. The pipeline and the gas fields were a major strategic US concern. Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. It was like the US attacking Brazil for Pearl Harbor.
Forgetting the lessons of the Soviet empire, the US empire dove headlong into the hornet's nest. Bin Laden? Bush didn't even care about him after his wars were launched.
Nation building was the real reason for Bush's treason. Nearly every tactic has ended up creating far more enemies of the US than bin Laden ever dreamed of. The daily drone attacks, civilian deaths from bombing, bad intel, etc, only serve to further endanger our troops so carelessly thrown into harm's way. As the escalation in Afghanistan started last fall, polls showed..
snip..
What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to the airstrikes that have killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Afghan civilians. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end to the conflict, and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership.
We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. 73% of Afghans think that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 'kept at the current level' (29%). Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase.
end snip.
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57168.shtml
Very little of the fighting going on in Afghanistan has anything to do with al Qaeda. We are fighting and insurgency of Afghans and the Taliban which we refuse to negotiate with. The Afghan people are accustomed to fending off outsiders and cannot be as readily manipulated as we anticipated we could.
http://www.pakistankakhudahafiz.com/2010/06/26/why-the-us-can%E2%80%99t-win-afghan-war/
snip..
First off, the COIN strategy it itself bad suited to the Afghan country. The USA has wrongly assumed that it can “win” the locals support and turn them against other Afghan people by arming them or giving them hefty monies. Because the strategy assumes (and wrongly) to portray Americans as friendly forces than invading forces, USA is drastically wrong in first place. Again, it requires not education but mere common sense to understand that to Afghans everything outside from Afghanistan is an invading force and where you can pay them to not fight you; you really can’t win their loyalties because in their hearts outsiders (Americans this time) remain invaders and it is widely known that Afghans do not reconcile to invaders. The obvious reason for US continuing with this strategy was probably its apparent success in Iraq. But Iraq is an altogether different piece of land. Iraq does not get invaded every so often. Priorities for Iraqi people are not really the same as of Afghans. The Afghan terrain is very different and most of all, Iraq had a fundamental drawback of Shiite-Sunni conflict which the USA could easily manipulate and exploit. For Afghanistan, religion is part of people’s culture. At the end of the day, what matters most for them is their freedom and in this, history tells they never accept outsiders in their hearts and minds. And because religion is a part and parcel of their culture, the only natural association Afghans accept (other than themselves) can only be with Muslims (Pakistan in this case).
The USA also probably thought it had a successful experience of using Afghans against Soviet Union. But here again, the USA overlooked a crucial aspect: Pakistan. When USA came to the region against Soviet Union, it really worked on winning the hearts and minds of Afghans and Pakistanis. Because of that it showed sincerity in its alliance. The real blow that Soviet Union then received was in fact from Pakistan and Afghans and not the US. This isn’t the case anymore. US, this time, has not come as a friendly force. So it would be fundamentally wrong and absurd to think that you can invade a country as unusual as Afghanistan and end up using strategies such as COIN to win friends. In fact, because of this flawed strategy, USA has not only failed it own self but also the NATO alliance (which is too faltering now) and most of all, its critical ally, Pakistan. USA has failed to win Pakistan’s trust and every passing day makes it more evident.
end snip..
If we really supported the troops we would more intelligently address the al Qaeda issue with all the civilian casualties, let the Afghans rebuild their government and nation with the aid of an international force of Muslim peace keepers, and most importantly, help the troops when they return, to get all the help they need to come back home in heart and mind. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 12:30:51 PM | the war is not ignored, most of the allies from around the world are pulling there troops out, firstly because the American soldier is very badly trained, and the have let all the other countries do the fighting for them, rather cowardly, but this is the tradition of the American military, they have not fought since before WW 1, the only thing they have is advanced technology, and money, the only time they are brave is when killing innocent civies, women and children
this goes back to the war of independence, they would have lost had it not have been for the french
that is simply not true. Dude I don't know where you get your anti-American hatred from, but at least try to be honest!
In Afghanistan virtually all of the dangerous ground is held by, and fighting done, by Americans, British & Canadians.
It is the many other so-called "allies" : e.g. German, French, Italian, etc. that have insisted they will only post their 'soldiers' in the provinces furthest removed from any actual fighting.
this goes back to the war of independence, they would have lost had it not have been for the french
LOL- let's got back 230-some-odd years for our 'ammunition' shall we?
not sure this is true, even if it were , wouldn't it be adequate payback that Allies, primarily US & UK, also Canada & other Allied nations, saved France's ass TWICE in this past century? 1917-18 & 1944-45? those Frenchies don't even seem all that grateful., really at least some of them. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 1:04:31 PM | Italians and Australians have suffered casualties, so cant be that safe.
Italians have their Alpini divisions, Aussies have their commando divisions.
So good soldiers.
Wasnt ww1 a stalemate? | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 4:02:21 PM | I would recommend the book by Ralph Nader the presidential candidate
He explains very clearly how America came to be a global power and lists the many things that could be improved | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 5:24:39 PM |
we are chaseing the orginisation who attacked our country on 9/11...when we started.they were in iraq
Wrong. When we started the training bases were in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in any way. In fact, the Hussein regime was opposed to the Taliban as well.
We used 9/11, and some propaganda about potential WMDs, as an excuse to break the cease fire from the first round of the Gulf War.
and unless we are in it to win and utterly destroy our enemy......then we make a mockery of the victims of 9/11 and an even bigger mockery of every single military personel who have ever shed blood for our country
With the exception of the Civil War, we have never completely destroyed our enemy. Germany still exists. So does Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Unless we are willing to commit genocide, the Taliban will continue to recruit destitute young men with nothing to lose. You can't destroy an idea. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/4/2010 6:15:09 PM | The original ignorer was the Bush Administration basically setting Afghanistan aside to focus on Iraq. Sadly, most of the progress made evaporated in the interim.
As for the American public, it is fairly easy for us to forget about wars overseas. Just ask someone who lived during the Korean War. We don't get bombed here, and life goes on with the same conveniences. The mainstream media seems incapable of focusing on more than one or two issues at a time. Our involvement in Afghanistan is old news, so just about any other newsworthy item, like the gulf disaster, easily trumps it.
The small upside, I think, is that our servicemen seem to be getting more positive recognition now than they did during the Vietnam era. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/6/2010 1:16:55 AM | nope,
did my time in both boxes, out now, but if Krygistan goes hot, maybe I will head back in.
They dont cover it because it is not popular to the current administration. Notice how the nightly death toll number reports ended when the Obama 'Hope" train came to town?
It was a very effective media blitz to associate Bush with every dead soldier on an nightly basis.....
Soldiers are still dying in both theaters.
You should be questioning why there are no more 'Radical Islamic Terrorists" ..... (apparently it is too offensive to muslim PC troop to call em what they are.) spineless Justice department.
The only ones I know that would try and paint a happy face on suicide bombers, terrorists and pirates. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/6/2010 5:51:58 AM | Pretty selective memory about news coverage per President.
War was somewhat better covered by the MSM during the Bush admin because he started them, they were fresh, and a majority of Americans still supported doing wrong no matter what. They decided early on not to do body counts as we did in the Vietnam debacle. Fatigue in the American public as settled in as these Bush wars have proven to be futile efforts, quagmires, and there is no longer a majority that believe in them. The MSM responds accordingly.
Bush was the one who censored the fallen troops returning in their caskets Bush was the one who embedded select reporters to propagandize his oil wars. I still see news reports of the fallen in our hometown paper, the funeral coverage, and plenty of coverage in alternative media.
The "radical islamic terrorists" hype of the Bush years, gave way because we are mostly fighting insurgencies in countries we have no business occupying. Since a majority of the bodies we leave behind are innocent civilians, it is in our best interests not to hype these oil war results based on bodies/day. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/6/2010 8:21:03 AM | Around 2001 the US and big oil concerns believed that the taliban would be a stabilizing force in afganistan. It wasn't long before the taliban refused to co-operate which prompted this statement from american negotiators, "At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'"
When some country has something that you want and they won't let you have access to it you make them your enemy. I doubt that if afganistan didn't have strategic benefits that anyone would care about the taliban and the region in general.
It isn't the forgotten war so much as it is just not the flavour of the month anymore. but it isn't going away any time soon in my opinion. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/6/2010 8:47:59 AM |
the war is not ignored, most of the allies from arround the world are pulling there troops out, firstly because the american soldier is very badly trained, and the have let all the other countries do the fighting for them, rather cowardly, but this is the tradition of the american military, they have not fought since before ww 1, the only thing they have is advanced technology, and money, the only time they are brave is when killing inocent civies, women and children
this goes back to the war of independance, they would have lost had it not have been for the french
I agree with the essence of the post above, except for the fact that , IMO, they (US forces) fought quite hard in WWII (IMO probably the last truly necessary war -- at least in the Pacific theatre following Japan's attack), and they also fought quite hard in Vietnam (although that was totally unnecessary ...IMO... essentially a waste of lives on all sides).
Everything since WWII however has been (again, IMO) a series of (oftentimes unilateral) US "interventions" and/or "police action"-types of situations (some of which were surely of questionable international legality).
And that doesn't even mention the covert ops over the post-war years, which have overthrown legitimately-elected gov't's (Iran -- Mossadegh, '53, Chile -- 9/11/73, to name two) and replaced them with US-backed dictatorships backed by CIA-trained thugs.
Imagine for a moment if it were discovered that another large important nation (China let's say, just for an example) was covertly conspiring to overthrow an elected US gov't and replace it with one more suited to their needs or liking; Americans would be beyond the level of officially having gone bananas, most would be practically howling for blood and vengeance. You wouldn't have seen so many eagle insignias and open militarism since Germany in the late 30's.
Yet when America has done this to others, or when it's committed actual state-sponsored terrorism like the "accidental" shooting-down of civilian Iranian airliner flight 655 on 3 July, 1988 , by the USS Vincennes, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 ) , then everyone is supposed to either overlook it, somehow excuse it, or get behind the effort and cheer it on.
Obama is no better. He has proven to be as much a "war president" as any other. Granted, he did not enter either war of his own volition (and he was , supposedly, apparently, against the Iraq war in 03 -- even though his opinion didn't really matter much at that time), but he also has not so far done anything to start the process of winding them down either. Nothing in earnest at least, beyond occasional lip service to the idea.
I believe his set deadlines will be conveniently missed (and called "impossible to meet" by the WH), just like his deadline for closing the illegal US military prison camp in Cuba. If I'm ever proven wrong by the administration I'll be pleasantly surprised -- until then I'll withdraw my personal support from them for the time being just as much as I would if it were a Republican president (instead of a Republican Lite president) who had escalated this pointless occupation in Afghanistan.
I personally support neither the troops nor the mission (and what exactly is their mission at this point?? What does their victory look like?? Can they explain and describe it in detail?? Beyond "withdrawing with dignity"....).
The record shows that since the end of WWII , instead of the oft-used terms "defense spending" it would be better and more accurately described as "offense spending", because this is a country that is nearly constantly on the offensive against someone (overtly or covertly) and yet wants everyone (including its own citizens of course) to believe they are nearly constantly under attack or near to being attacked, and their freedom and "way of life" is nearly constantly being threatened.
This is in fact a paranoid and militaristic worldview, which is held by I would venture at least half or probably more than half of this country's regular population (as a result of the mainstream media propaganda) and it helps sustain the massive US military-industrial complex.
Those who have said here that remaining at war with Muslims in at least two Muslim countries will not make the US (or any of its allies) any safer, were also quite correct.
Recall for example the (failed) Nigerian bomber of Christmas Eve 2009. Had his device worked correctly, Obama could have sent 300,000 more troops (instead of just 30,000) into Afghanistan prior to it and it would have made no difference.
Had Faisal Shahzad (the would-be Times Square bomber) had better bomb-making know-how or equipment, or had he even thought to open those propane tanks inside that truck before lighting the fuses, it wouldn't have mattered what the troops were doing in Afghanistan.
Terrorism can still occur (and attempts will be made; it's going to be a fact of life here for some years I believe, on and off) regardless of where the US sends troops to occupy indefinitely. They can go to Somalia next, or to Yemen, or even into Iran if they dare, and all that the successive administrations will be achieving in the long run will be to further inflame and alienate large swathes of the Muslim world in general and further add to the appearance that the US and its allies hate Islam and/or are at war with it as a whole.
The "Bush doctrine" notion of the "pre-emptive strike", and "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" has been proven to be complete nonsense (and it was used so far against two nations which did not strike the US first in any case), created in order to justify aggression and expansion / occupation -- I believe primarily for the purposes of future crucial resource domination. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/8/2010 6:43:06 PM |
Why atttack Iraq when most were Saudis?
Saudi Arabia is a major player in OPEC; in order to keep oil prices down, we play ball with them. We forgive the tyrannical nature of their government in order to keep the gas pumps flowing.
Iraq, on the other hand, was opening trade talks with China and sought another OPEC price increase against the US. Ironically, they wanted to increase the prices to pay for their 8-year war with Iran, which the US supported.
Iraq was contained, wasnt a threat, was secular
Iraq was far from secular. Granted, Hussein wasn't a rahbar, as in Iran, but there was a fair bit of religious persecution. | |
|
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/8/2010 6:59:10 PM |
Iraq, on the other hand, was opening trade talks with China and sought another OPEC price increase against the US. Ironically, they wanted to increase the prices to pay for their 8-year war with Iran, which the US supported.
Also do not forget that Iraq stopped using the greenback and start trading their oil with the Euro.
Saddam sealed his fate when he decided to switch to the euro in late 2000 (and later converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. to euros). | |
|
Tah,
| | Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 38 | |
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/9/2010 4:30:33 AM | there's plenty of credibility in the belief Bin Laden died of or from complications of Kidney Disease in 2002!
Al Queda cease's and has done for 8 years to exist as an orginization capable of anything!
We now fight a crusade based on oil and gas supply.
If you do not know these fundementals you are ignoring them!
so no I'm not Ignoring this war, however I could spend alot more time learning alot more detail but unfortunatly I'd want to chat online on forums and that leads to so much angst and negitive experience's with the ignorant ones, it aint worth it.
There's nought I can do to change whats going on, why should i expend the energy?
But I am informed enough . | |
|
| |
| The Ignored War
Posted: 7/11/2010 12:04:01 AM | It's not so much about the quality of oil....moreso it's about the denomination the oil is traded in.
The M.I.C. along with their media partners are doing a fine job of making sure their perpetual profit from unendless war will be the "new normal", thus the top story on the nightly snews will generally be some irrelevant, albeit "shocking" incident that typically has no impact on our lives. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
