Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Afghanistan War      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 knightwhosaysnih
Joined: 4/2/2009
Msg: 4
Afghanistan WarPage 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Long harboured by the exquisitely neutral term, "collateral damage," we would do well to embrace updates to the language used to describe war's signiture effect on the local population. Many here who have previously or currently serve in the armed forces would therefore be in a position to correct or corroborate my understanding that the US Navy has forwarded the far more realistic moniker -"excessive death." Refuting the failed notion that war (an activity undertaken by people against other people) can be asceptically conducted upon things like drugs and terror, this designation underscores the essential character of the act, which it's been observed ends, "only after it has roled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction." (L. Breshnev)

Moreover, given we mark and mourn each and every loss of our "fallen heroes," it may be asked how the champions of human rights can so resolutely refuse to count the legions of liberated civilian dead that result from what the Canadian Prime Minister calls, "a noble and necsessary" mission. Again duly noted is the opinion of one who on behalf of the allied forces, was part of the team that prosecuted the Nazi's at Nuremburg. In 2005, from the podium of the United Nations, he called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "crimes against humanity," and the rationalizations of them, "a system of chaos, not a system of law." (Benjamin Forenz)

Compounding tragedy is the belief that any blame can be laid at the feet of those must instantly distinguish between comrades, civilians, unlawful enemy combatants, friends and "scumbags" (Gen R Hillier) through the sights of a rifle levelled into, "the fog of war." Despite unconscionable efforts to expropriate our natural compassion for our friends and family in the military, through the relentless cry to "support our troops," it's understood that (undertaken at the unfettered discretion of government) the decision to engage in war forms no part of the North American electoral agenda. This is to say, no matter how loud or relentless the chourus of "freedom and democracy," neither the soldiers themselves nor their extended family at home were consulted in the matter of their deployment. To surrender the decision to engage in war (arguably the most important decision people can make) to an omnipotent government, fails humanity and democracy in equal measure.
 itechman63
Joined: 7/7/2005
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:40:25 PM

Afghanistan is a shit hole and no matter how many battles are won, the war was lost before it started.


I am guessing everyone is aware that in the history of mankind that Afghanistan (or the lands that are now Afghanistan) has never known prosperity nor peace? They don't strive for it, never expect it, nor would know how to embrace it. In spite of the oppression of Taliban rule it was the first time ever they've seen any semblance of stability.

The Soviet mistake in the 80s and our mistakes in the past with Afghanistan is not understanding their culture. No experience in dealing with other cultures in conflict can prepare one for a conflict in Afghanistan.

But in all of my expressions of opinion, let me do add that I have the greatest respect, admiration, and gratitude for all men and women that have served in the armed forces both during conflict and otherwise. I don't want my disagreements here to come across as disrespectful and ungrateful to those that have lived the experience.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 6/25/2009 7:02:31 PM

Long harboured by the exquisitely neutral term, "collateral damage," we would do well to embrace updates to the language used to describe war's signiture effect on the local population. Many here who have previously or currently serve in the armed forces would therefore be in a position to correct or corroborate my understanding that the US Navy has forwarded the far more realistic moniker -"excessive death."

collateral damage and excessive death mean two entirely different things.
Collateral damage refers to damage that is an artifact of an attack, and unintended .... destroying an adjacent building in addition to the one you targeted, (bad if it's a school, good it it's an ammo dump), or even cratering a road when you take out a tank. Civilian deaths are, indeed, collateral damage - but it is not a euphemism for civilian causalities in any way.

Excessive death is used to describe where you kill more people than you need to achieve your mission objectives. Going into battle and destroying an enemy force by killing 100 of 500 troops is one thing - "finishing" the job by killing the other 400 is excessive - ie, excessive death.

Taking out a bunker in the middle of a city with precision munitions is one thing. Taking out that same bunker with a 50 kiloton nuclear strike would cause excessive death.

I hope you can see the difference between the two terms, and not try to play any further word games to try to equate the two.



Refuting the failed notion that war (an activity undertaken by people against other people) can be asceptically conducted upon things like drugs and terror, this designation underscores the essential character of the act, which it's been observed ends,


Of course war is conducted by people against other people - only an idiot would claim otherwise. What you fail to mention, though is that things like drugs and terror are WHY some people go to war against other people. I would hope that your oversight was unintentional.


"only after it has roled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction." (L. Breshnev)

Nikita Khrushchev, not Brezhnev.


Again duly noted is the opinion of one who on behalf of the allied forces, was part of the team that prosecuted the Nazi's at Nuremburg. In 2005, from the podium of the United Nations, he called the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "crimes against humanity," and the rationalizations of them, "a system of chaos, not a system of law." (Benjamin Forenz)

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were about a lot more than just Nazis killing Jews. To try to give credence to somebody's opinion just because he is Jewish, by trying to paint him as a victum of Nazi excess, is odious as hell.

Compounding tragedy is the belief that any blame can be laid at the feet of those must instantly distinguish between comrades, civilians, unlawful enemy combatants, friends and "scumbags" (Gen R Hillier) through the sights of a rifle levelled into, "the fog of war." Despite unconscionable efforts to expropriate our natural compassion for our friends and family in the military, through the relentless cry to "support our troops," it's understood that (undertaken at the unfettered discretion of government) the decision to engage in war forms no part of the North American electoral agenda.

That's quite the statement, given that the potential or current wars in Iraq and Afganistan were public issues during the last 2 presidential campaigns in the US, and the Canadian elections held during the same period. I'm pretty sure that the voters of both countries took those possibilities into account when they cast their ballots.


This is to say, no matter how loud or relentless the chourus of "freedom and democracy," neither the soldiers themselves nor their extended family at home were consulted in the matter of their deployment. To surrender the decision to engage in war (arguably the most important decision people can make) to an omnipotent government, fails humanity and democracy in equal measure.

See above - your assertion is false on it's face.

Now I would like to say a few things here .... first, wordy, contorted writing is NOT profound, erudite, or intellectual - it's just bad writing. And given that your namesake (I am assuming Noam Chomsky?) is a LINGUIST, I have no doubt his head would explode reading what you wrote.

2nd point - still assuming your some sort of disciple or fan of Chomsky's .... he is one hellova linguist, and deserves every accolade he's ever received in that field.

But why he is held out to be such a great political mind, or a philosopher, is beyond me. His view on politics have about as much weight or authority as those of Albert Einstein's on football.
 whothehellknows
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 7
Afghanistan War
Posted: 7/31/2009 10:15:00 AM
The US and NATO use very heavy firepower in their battles. That is a great thing in hills and forests, but in cities it tends to create more enemies than it kills. What good is it to kill 5 enemies when you destroy people's homes or kill their families and create 25 NEW enemies in the process? Our opponents know this, so of course they will try to engage us in cities where the threat of civilian casualties is very high.

Somalia is a great example of this. We went in in December of 1994 (?) to crowds where were glad to see us, but a few months later they were dragging our dead soldiers through the streets because our tactics had turned most of the population against us. We basically did the same in Iraq except the people weren't glad to see us when we invaded. Only after we focused on the people did things calm down and more of the population start to work with us.

Iraq started to turn around when the US started to focus on security and not fighting the insurgents. It is long past time we started to do that in Afghanistan as well. The only way to defeat a insurgency is to undercut their support, and you don't do that by killing civilians, blowing up their houses or bombing wedding parties because you thought their celebration gunfire was a firefight. When provided with security, the various tribes in Iraq quit fighting us and started protecting their own neighborhoods.
 JWG86
Joined: 7/5/2008
Msg: 8
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/23/2009 10:57:01 PM
A tank, a plane, a bomb. All can destroy, but the only weapon in a Military's aresenal that can clear and hold a single square foot of territory is the infantryman. As long as we allow the infantry of our opponents to safely hole up in homes, we allow them to retain the land we are trying to remove them of. The only way to "win" this is to go door-to-door. I say "win" because I think we have bitten off more than we can chew. The United States trying to bring peace to this corner of the world is like a single swat-team trying to prevent the illegal sale of drugs in Calliope. Lots of people are going to die and nothing will change.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 6:37:42 AM
As usual, Edisto cut to the bone on the truth of Afghanistan and Iraq and our other bloody little wars. Wars waged for US corporate interests will never be able to win the hearts and minds of the invaded. We could not do it in Vietnam and will fail in the Middle East as well.

After the millions of innocent lives slaughtered in Vietnam and our subsequent withdrawal, the Vietnamese have proven to be a forgiving people and our relations are quite civilized these days.

The oil wars are unnecessary, based on lies and have only served to destabilize the world and make us less safe, less self-sustaining, and financially indebted to the Chinese.

The euphemisms contrived to try minimize our shame at the slaughter of innocent lives are mere constructs, designed to keep the hearts and minds of the invaders safe from reality. "Collateral damage" and "excessive deaths" are nothing but mind control for US citizens. These wars have been sanitized for YOUR protection.
 shmodzilla
Joined: 10/6/2008
Msg: 10
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 2:15:18 PM
I have yet to figure out exactly what they mean by their decision with fighting around civilian houses. I'm almost sure until we talk with someone right there ,right now there will be no clear answer. Those who believe the media is ever correct well....
Secondly we have had our hands tied from day one wich has been one of the biggest obstacles fighting.
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 2:40:38 PM
Must be Afganistan is now on the evening news more...the US has something like 35k troups in Afganistan or maybe 50K to win that war...you got more cops in NY city than soldiers on the ground in a country. What is the Iraqi war boring now. Wasn't this the original war..the reason why we went. Bin Laden...whos dead. What now, what do we do, tell the masses.

I am pissed off at this war...really pissed off. We send our troups there to free them, to offer them the reality of being yourself, individual...and what does the elected offical say to get voted in...that you can abuse your woman, beat her, that the man is superior. And only a fraction of the girls are able to go to school not because they won't because they still can't. There religious idealism prevails...what a waste of life and time. The military made pacts and treaties with the tribesmen in the north and Heroin is back on the streets in full fashion. The taliban is in part Pakistanis dedicated to allah and theres 70 million of them. You got 50k, hell Canadas got 1k a canoe and a cesna. And these guys are giving it there all...at a high cost. I don't see Afganistan or Iraq as important...its not my business after hearing that guy and his politics over there...Its not just that there women are whipping post, but anything other than what they understand will not be tolerated, state wise anyways. I think we should just leave and let them live the way they want...don't interfer anymore...just go..it isn't worth it. Just look at the orders there giving our men and women over there...put a target on your back.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 4:33:07 PM
Some folks still don't get it. Iraq and Afghanistan were never some noble cause for "freeing the people" or "democracy". It was all pipelines and oils supplies and euros vs. dollars. The people were just pawns, in both the US and in the invaded regions.

As for "PC rules of engagement", can anyone here honestly say that they would play by the rules of engagement of the invaders of our nation(s) when faced with overwelming firepower? Would anyone here not react the same way when their families were terrorized in the middle of the night, when robot drones killed entire families by mistake, or when the invaders acted like thugs blocking commerce, roadways, access to clean water and electricity? The Afghans have a long history of resisting outsiders. Our "democracy" smells just as bad to them as the other excuses to "liberate" them over the centuries. Gunpoint democracy is a sham, a nice cover for our more insideous national interests.
 Double Cabin
Joined: 11/29/2004
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:47:59 PM
I respect the President for taking the fight not only to the peole who actually attacked us but to actual misoginists and hypocritical "Muslim" "fundamentalists." A lot different than invading a country like Iraq who we'd actually given tacit approval to use WMDS and the only secular country where women actually went to school and asumed the highest positions in government in a region we were subsequently told we were trying to instill Democracy into.

"War," not occupation, means actually seeking out and destroying the enemy on a regular if not daily basis. The hypocrites of the Bush Administration were either nefarious or unforgiveably myopic, take your choice.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 5:58:17 PM
We serve only to unite the people of Afghanistan against the US. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...as the old saying goes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/13/world/worldwatch/entry5240954.shtml

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1248188004863&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs/MAELayout
snip..
"Commenting on the Afghan scenario and the future of foreign troops in this landlocked country, analyst Waheed Muzhda said that the best option for NATO countries is to have a timeframe, address the security issue at the earliest, and pull out of Afghanistan.

Muzhda believes that a longer stay would cause more civilian deaths, attracting much popular anger, and hence leading to more support bases for the Taliban.

He foresees more violence in days ahead as militants have now extended their operations to the northern and western zones of the country, once considered peaceful and out-of-the-reach of the Taliban.

The similar apprehensions were recently shown by the UN special envoy to Afghanistan Kai Eide and a NATO commander, who both admitted that the Taliban have spread to the northern zone.

As for violence, Muzhda said that there was no solution to the problem. "Kill one and it would create 10 more," he added. Muzhda asked for talks through tribal elders with all those who are ready to talk.

He also suggested the establishment of Afghan troops — both police and army — and providing Afghan youth with jobs, who in many areas either become drug addicts or turn to Taliban to become their foot soldiers.

According to a recent survey, corruption, civil war, and warlordism are the biggest problems of Afghans. More than half of the Afghan population lives below the poverty line, with 40 percent are unemployed."
 shmodzilla
Joined: 10/6/2008
Msg: 15
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:22:49 PM
Yet another cover my eyes and hope it goes away perspective
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 16
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/24/2009 8:50:03 PM
Some folks still don't get it. Iraq and Afghanistan were never some noble cause for "freeing the people" or "democracy"...

As for "PC rules of engagement", can anyone here honestly say that they would play by the rules of engagement of the invaders of our nation(s) when faced with overwelming firepower? Would anyone here not react the same way when their families were terrorized in the middle of the night, when robot drones killed entire families by mistake, or when the invaders acted like thugs blocking commerce, roadways, access to clean water and electricity? The Afghans have a long history of resisting outsiders. Our "democracy" smells just as bad to them as the other excuses to "liberate" them over the centuries. Gunpoint democracy is a sham, a nice cover for our more insideous national interests.


^^ Well said. I agree with you truly. Gunpoint democracy is a sham. I predict it will not last for the long run in Iraq either, once US troops are all gone someday. Total waste of lives sadly (on all sides), waste of money, etc. Saddam was obviously just as well 'contained', and furthermore served as a useful (generally non-religious) Sunni 'buffer' against radical Shi'ite influence in the Gulf region (such as from Iran -- which now has a much freer hand there, and undoubtedly much more influence in Iraq than it ever could have had under Saddam).

Yes he was a thuggish despot and a criminal, obviously...but so are other regimes which the US supports and allies with / does business with (are the Saudi rulers for instance so very civilized and democratic and kind to their people?? Or Mubarak of Egypt? Qadaffi is ok now as well, because he has met Washington's terms, paid his fines, etc, so he's back in bu$iness... we now are upgraded to embassies status w/Libya and, this whole Megrahi flap notwithstanding, Americans and Libyans can travel back and forth, and so on, in fact soon he WILL -- yes it's true look it up -- be pitching his famous traveling tent in NYC's Central Park when he comes to visit the US and address the UN !). Saddam furthermore was a former friend and ally of Washington anyway (when he was useful...which further illustrates the Machiavellianism and sheer hypocrisy Washington all too often uses as foreign policy).

I favor Obama on some things he has done or is trying to do, I voted for him, however, I was truly hoping he would begin to ratchet down Afghanistan occupation, and let the chips fall where they may with that truly unwinnable situation, instead of caving to the ever-present US military-industrial complex and ratcheting things UP. Now it has become his war, after he's increased troops, and so forth.
 coolshoeshine
Joined: 5/27/2009
Msg: 17
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/25/2009 2:02:39 AM
Well I know this may sound a little out there but think of this way name two institutions that would profit from a war like Afghanistan continuing? Weapon manufacturers who are creating and supplying our armed forces, and the Federal Reserve (which is the privately owned bank that loans America the majority of its money!). To some people theories like sound a little to far fetch but when it comes down money many people do not see the cost of human life just the profit of war! It is just like you said why are they announcing our plans to enemies? Announcing our plans leads the enemy creating strategy which in turns continues the war and continues their profits!

If you think this ideal is bull crap then ask your self why before we even finish resetting the Afghanistan government did we invade Iraq? Then as soon as we got Sadaam out Haliburton was awarded the contract to build the pipeline that runs from the Persian Gulf(right through Iraq) up to the Mediterranean Sea? Who used to run Haliburton? Chaney our former Vice President! So folks Afghanistan was a front door for Bush and Chaney to kick down to get to Iraq! My question is why is Obama deciding to kick this door open again? Is it to draw our attention away from the fact he still has brought home the number of troops he said he was when first elected then changed after he was in office?

Hate to say it people but all of those crazed theories make a lot of sense when you look at them....well some of them lol!
 coolshoeshine
Joined: 5/27/2009
Msg: 18
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/25/2009 2:06:40 AM
Typing correction

I meant to say that Obama still has not brought back home the number of troops he said!
 coolshoeshine
Joined: 5/27/2009
Msg: 19
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/25/2009 1:14:26 PM
I think Iraq and Afghanistan are staging grounds to hone our military skills and tactics against fighting urban gurellia warfare. Seriously look at the interests out there and many people want those interests! If we are securing our protection then why did our leaders focus on Iraq first? A country who had a C- minus leader instead worrying more about North Korea or Iran! Two countries who both had and still have strong influential leaders! I mean Sudaam was trying to control his people but he didn't the type of strangle hold the Kim-Jong has on his people or the total Anti-America beliefs growing, building, and being nursed in Iran!
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 20
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/25/2009 1:49:04 PM
^^ You're going to need more than honed military skills and new tactics against urban guerilla warfare if you think the US is ever in the near future going to be in a position to take on Iran (to say nothing of the apparently already nuclear North Korea). You're going to need something you don't have; endless reserves of $$, and young men and women ready to die. Already, we are out of #1 on that list. #2 is stretched quite thin as we speak (or rather type). The only option would be a draft of 18 - 21 yr olds, for starters. And THEN we'd see protests....we thought protests over Iraq were bad..... Understandably, not that many American parents are ready to give their sons (or daughters) to die over a "regime change" meant to , for example, "protect Israel's long-term existence" by removing the Islamic gov't of Iran. The international community would never go along with it, short of Iran literally nuking someone.

The US forces have barely held the peace in Iraq, to say nothing of the ongoing Afghan mess. And they think they'd have what it would take to hold down and occupy IRAN for years on end now as well?? And anyway, ultimately to what end?? Securing oil?? The Saudis would be the ones you'd want to take out if domination of world oil supply was truly the main goal. Securing Israel's existence?? Come on...I know the US gov't is (or at least is at times) tight with them, but they've never been THAT tight....

And drafting youngsters doesn't even touch on the whole lack of money issue. Who's going to continue giving the US gov't much-needed credit to run these endless wars forever, on debts that are apparently already not able to be repaid ? They are amazed and confounded at the current projected deficits, and that they don't have enough money to easily fund these proposed healthcare changes. No, they don't have it. But Iraq and Afghanistan at least have new zip codes, quasi-democratic / puppet gov't's, and apparently semi-permanent American occupation/police forces to protect them... Gee, all so worth it in the end..... This is exactly why I have always wholeheartedly rejected the chimera Bush fell prey to; the 'neo-conservatives' (many of whom were former Trotskyites) 'grand vision' of implanting, by force , our own political system in lands that are not truly ready or willing to accept it.
 whothehellknows
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 21
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/26/2009 7:32:49 AM

The ONLY way to stop gurellia type warfare is to start disrupting lives. When someone shoots at us, or sets an IED off. You stop the convoy, hit the battle drill 1A React to Contact, and you go disrupt lives. You kick in doors and you make life miserable for everyone in the neighborhood. Eventually those people will get tired of getting messed with and will start pointing out and standing up against the Taliban.


They did that in Iraq for the first 5 or so years and were teetering on defeat. Only when they went to COIN operations did they change things around. The above method just creates more enemies, and like Vietnam, their ability to withstand causalities far outstrips our own.

The fact that no one speaks of is the Taliban could not operate in Afghanistan or Pakistan without the support of the people there. The people up until now have had no reason to support a government that can not provide security or improve their lives in anyway.

Fighting the Taliban on the battlefield is a no-win situation because you generate more enemies doing so. Asymmetrical warfare cannot be won through conventional means. The path of victory is by providing security and showing the people their future will be better with supporting the Afghan government and not the Taliban. If the Taliban no longer has the support of the people to operate in their communities, then they lose influence and power.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 22
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/26/2009 7:49:49 AM
^^ Great assessment. I'd agree. People often fail to realize Taliban is to an extent a very real 'organic' (so to speak) outgrowth of the culture of that country, or if not Taliban specifically then at least it's fair to say south Asian-style Wahabbism / Deobandism is a natural cultural occurrence there. In both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Just like Biblical literalism and 'born-again' evangelical Christianity are to an extent in America (particularly parts of the South for example; although I am not saying that is equivalent to the type of radical Islam seen over there). Even less so than foreign invaders could come here and occupy the South, and convince those...oftentimes well-armed...people to 'moderate' their brand of religion and allow the invaders to kick in doors, take away local men, etc etc, can we reasonably expect the population of Afghanistan and the 'tribal regions' to allow it to happen to them. They would (or will) resist occupation and change to their traditions , in some form or another, until the end of time. The Soviets learned that, and it cost them ... in fact it ultimately cost them the Soviet Union and their whole system as they knew it.

It's a no-win situation if ever there was one. And I would challenge President Obama to define for me clearly, without resort to rhetoric, jingoism, or teleprompter, what true 'victory' in Afghanistan will look like. In common terms, What is the point precisely. And right after he defines that, he can then tell us precisely when he expects all this to occur. If not, then he is , IMO, continuing essentially Bush-era policies (war without end) in regards to Afghanistan and pouring still further money down a worthless drain.
 coolshoeshine
Joined: 5/27/2009
Msg: 23
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 4:35:46 AM
I say I think they're training grounds because no matter what our political leaders pretty much always find ways to further American Capitalist goals! One of these is oil....where is a huge chunk of the world's oil? The middle East! Have you guys ever read the Confessions of An Economic Hitman? Some of it may sound like a great spy movie or some sheat like that but think of how quick Halliburton received the contract to build the pipeline that flows from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf? I feel the this war on terrorism is just a disguise for certain companies and individuals to deepen their pockets! Honestly how are we safer from terrorist now that we have killed over half a million Iraqis and pretty much spawned a greater hate for America? If these politicians really want to help the American people they should abolish the Federal Reserve! A privately owned bank that every time it loans the American Government money it comes with an interest that can never be paid back because this money we use has no true backing!! The war in Afghanistan and Iraq was funded by loans from foreign governments and money produced by the Federal Reserve!

We don't need oil to survive....there are numerous other sources of renewable energy our country can run off of!

I'm sorry if some of you don't agree with me on but remember this is my opinion! So please don't say I'm wrong.....say you disagree! THESE ARE MAINLY OPINIONS I'M STATING NOT ALL OF IT IS FACT!

Either way though I think most can agree to many lives have been spent over all of this rather you want to say it was for our nation's security, oil, money, hate, greed, religion, or what have you! I agree with Dino and the other individual that our involvement in Afghanistan is just spawning more breeding grounds for more terrorists!

Before I go one thing I want to remind people was....what major country supplied weapons and training to help defend off the Soviet Union when it was trying to invade Afghanistan? Any of you ever wonder what could possibly come of taking over a country like Afghanistan? To any individual it should obvious that your gonna run in a enduring resistance in that country! So why?
 raxarsr
Joined: 7/10/2008
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 8:18:26 AM
theres one fact a lot of you folks arent seeing....we didnt invade afganistan......we're not trying to conquor it either......we are presueing the taliban............and........with afganistans blessing........the scinario is very similar to vietnam when troops were sent into cambodia....you gotta go to the enemy.

face it folks..the taliban..for whatever reason.wants to see america dead...gone.wiped off the face of the earth.

i remember .very clearly...when bin laden was on tv....way before 9/11...and declared war on america..........i was holding my daughter on my lap.....she was perhaps 2 yrs old...totally innocent of anything but spilling her cup of milk......and here's this guy spitting hate and telling me.[yes.i took it personally]....that he just sentanced my lil girl to death........not to mention my sons, my wife and everyone else i hold dear.

we MUST finish this.....theres no comprimise.......because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning.......if we stop before the taliban is utterly destroyed.........we WILL be attacked again.

no....i dont like war........i'm saddened each and every time one of our service personel is hurt or killed..........but we DIDNT pick this fight.......we DONT want this fight.......but we're in it.....and i hope and pray that we win this fight..........because the alternative is something that no american wants
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 25
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 9:36:04 AM
we MUST finish this.....theres no comprimise.......because as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning.......if we stop before the taliban is utterly destroyed.........we WILL be attacked again.


^^ There always has to be compromise. Even as we speak the US military command, under Obama, is coming to terms with the fact that they will have to eventually 'deal with' at least SOME of the (less extremely militant) elements from within the Taliban, at least in certain parts of that country. It's simply not going to go away and cannot be uprooted.

"Utterly destroyed" is completely impossible; just like when you tried to utterly destroy the Viet Cong and "uproot" Communism from southeast Asia.

As for being attacked again, the Taliban (even the worst elements from within it) have never launched nor planned to launch a single operation against foreigners on foreign soil.

Taliban are not and never have been international terrorists; they are homegrown religious militants bent on imposing their type of Islam on their own country as much as possible. All they did , in regards to BinLaden and/or 9/11, was to 'host' BinLaden (before 9/11 ever happened) and allow training camps to operate within a part of the country that was under their control (at least nominally under their control -- in reality much of that country and especially those regions end up under local tribal control anyway).

It would have been enough, following 9/11, to do fly-over bombing sorties and completely destroy those camps, and then work cooperatively with Pakistani military and intelligence to capture as many of the higher-ranking terrorists as possible (many of them , such as key 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Muhammad and Ramzi bin alShibh, fled into Pakistan anyway). No invasion , much less semi-permanent occupation, of Afghanistan was even truly necessary.

In fact, the US captured its highest-ranking terrorists (such as the two I just named) in Pakistan, working hand in hand with Pakistani military and intel, NOT through the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Through that invasion, most of what they netted there were small-fry, local Taliban grunts (at best) and (at worst) wrongly captured shepherds and farmers mistaken as militants (who nonetheless probably ARE militants now, following their treatment in American hands...).
 coolshoeshine
Joined: 5/27/2009
Msg: 26
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 10:13:12 AM
** Dino I agree with you on that and man you need a radio show!!

-To raxarsr
Ok I never remember Osama Bin Laden declaring war on America before 9/11 especially on television! I could be wrong but I'm youtubing and googling and yahooing but I'm not finding any that were aired before 9/11! Hell from what I remember the captured journalists videos did not start until after the invasion of Afghanistan! So sir if you could link a video of a tv show post dated before 9/11/01 that clearly shows him doing so I would appreciate it. Because I feel something is a miss here....either you could be making something up, the government is hiding information, or the world wide web(thank you thread 12 things your not supposed say in the office anymore) has possibly lost these videos! I'm not trying saying you are lying but could be incorrect on when you remember seeing these and I say this on the grounds that eye witness testimony is not always so reliable.
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 27
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 11:38:04 AM
you need a radio show!!


That's what *I* keep saying!!!


As far as the reality of the US-led coalition, and the US-backed Afghan gov't, having to eventually "talk to" the Taliban, I forgot to add some helpful links:
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/08/01/talking-to-the-taliban/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/world/asia/18taliban.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883854,00.html

One way or the other, IMO you WILL hear of peace talks between the Taliban and the coalition/US-backed gov't. It's in everyone's best interest to start wrapping things up one of these upcoming months......or actually probably one of these upcoming years but, my bet is it starts to happen in earnest before Obama's next election. I believe he's far too politically astute to have come this far only to risk it all on 'war without end' in Afghanistan. He HAS to have absorbed this, after watching the mistakes of the GW Bush administration over its final three to four years....
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Afghanistan War
Posted: 8/27/2009 11:39:52 AM
The Taliban in Afghanistan were much like our religious right here, just trying to impose their version of religion on everyone else in their country. They were not all that friendly with Al Qaeda until after the Caspian Sea Pipeline negotiations broke down with the US/Enron. The US had already threatened to attack Afghanistan well before 9/11, under the guise of going after Bin Laden, though Bin Laden had been a much lower priority for the Bush administration than the pipeline deal.

W ith every air strike prior to, and the invasion after 9/11, the US actions served to create and strengthen a symbiotic relationships between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, both committed to fending off the latest invaders of Arab lands and their oil. Bin Laden had stated that the US reaction to 9/11 via the Afghan invasion, played into the hands of Al Queda, strengthening them and garnering widespread support in the Arab world. The Iraq attack, escalating our aggression against Afghans, and drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan have all served to increase the ranks of Al Qaeda and attract sympathizers from other groups.

Bush was not all that concerned with Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11, used him for a temporary scapegoat afterwards, and when fully engaged in the oir wars, again seemed to care less about Al Qaeda. It has always been about oil, the PNAC agenda, and a bit of lil Bush's ego issues.
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Afghanistan War