Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

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  > Politics  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?Page 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)

If we withdraw, more than likely Usama Bin Laden will probably come out of hiding and take back Afghanistan.
Well, I'm not sure that one could say that he will take back Afghanistan ... he never had Afghanistan ... was just based there.

After what has been going on since 9/11 it does occur to me that the Afghani people will not be so eager to embrace him and his folks so quickly, but OBL has money and unfortunately money speaks volumes when all you've known for the past 8 years is war.

It would be great to capture OBL ... would hopefully bring closure for many people who suffered losses related to 9/11 ... including the troops who have lost their lives as a result of the past 8 year war.

The flip side of the coin is that in the process of pursuing OBL, we have made a lot of mistakes and I'm thinking that the US is not in line for a lot of forgiveness at this time. So just capturing OBL is probably not going to end the hate for us from that region that has been festering for so long.

Don't forget, people who hate us don't need OBL to lead them ... hate is a strong emotion.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:59:26 PM

Wait just a minute. It wasn't all that long ago I was being told by every Obama supporter on this board and the media too, that his Cairo speech "reset" relations with the arab world and various non-governmental arab organizations.
I know I didn't say that and anyways ... speaking to the "Arab world" and various non-governmental Arab organizations ... wouldn't necessarily apply to the extremists now would it?

When anyone speaks to "the Christians", that probably doesn't include the extremists (say for example) David Koresh ... right? But maybe it does. Does it include the Lutherans or the Catholics or just the Baptists? Does it include the Methodists and Presbyterians? Or does it only include the Born-Agains?

Point is ... the Cairo speech certainly didn't make things right with the perceived enemies over there in the Middle East.

And wasn't it Obama who kept endlessly claiming Afghanistan was a "war of neccessity" during his magical mystery tour run to the white house.I don't know ... why not post some sort of link?
And wasn't it president Obama in March who announced, a "comprehensive new strategy" ...... "We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations" and "with members of Congress. " All to end "long years of drift" (said last Monday) in Afghanistan.
I don't know anymore ... post a link.

OT ...
Yes it's time to bring the troops home.
 passionteman
Joined: 3/7/2005
Msg: 18
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/30/2009 8:18:06 PM
There are many factors that the situation in Afghanistan WILL not get better with the presence and involvement of foreign troops being there with all their artilerry and power and try to shoot people in the name of "Taliban", destroy innocent lives of civilians, destroy villages and cities and kill innocent children.

1. Afghans consists of different ethnic groups which include Pushtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other elasticities mixed in there. They have cultural and traditional values that they have hang on to for generations and generations and since the family system is all tied up together, the foreign troops are out there against a "beehive" rather than one person. You hurt one member of the family and you get the whole family get up in arms to hurt you back. They take matters in their own hands and don't call 911 or report it to the government.

2. Religiously speaking, they are allowed to defend themselves, their families and the country if they are attacked and what the US government and other countries do is show the might of their power with tanks, helicopters and military equipment and this gives them the sense of getting occupied, which they have fought against throughout history.

3. What the US military and the rest of the military gang from other countries do is bombard places, villages, cities and kill innocent children and destroy families and that encourages male members of different tribe and groups to band together for the following reasons:

A. They want to revenge the death of their entire family that the US military carpet bombed.

B. Some join different groups because they have large families and they don't have money to support them financially, so joining different groups helps them earn some money to support their family. All of this is because of poor economy and war that we have created in there.

4. Taliban are not just an "organized group" as the US military and the rest of the world considers them to be. People band together just like I mentioned above in different parts and form groups and form resistance against foreign troops for the above-mentioned reasons and the US government labels them as "Taliban".

5. There are groups that might be out there that don't belong to these two categories and are running operations, but it is all a mixed group of different people.

- The only way to bring solution to Afghan crisis is to stop showing off the military power and instead get the people engaged by finding their potentials and teaching them how to earn a living whether it is farming, carpentry, manufacturing etc. That way, the majority of men will be able to support their families and will not arm here and there to form resistance.
 Twill348
Joined: 12/20/2008
Msg: 19
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/30/2009 10:35:54 PM
"So you dimiss the fact that Pakistan has over 100 nuclear weapons as a component? "

On 9.10, it seemed not to matter at all! Now, since the military is desperatly seeking any excuse to stay in Afghanistan, it's NUCLEAR WAR!!!!

Always start with the premise that the General is lying.

"So it's emotional? At least that relieves us of having to make rational decisions "

Since when is emotion not rational? We live in a world, governed by emotional human beings. To ignore emotion, would, be, irrational. Or do you think, that the military guys watched the 9.11 attacks, with the thought, "Gee, this is really gonna totally screw up my weekend"? Are the jihadists not motivated by emotion?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 20
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:24:06 AM
Message 27 ...
1. You hurt one member of the family and you get the whole family get up in arms to hurt you back. They take matters in their own hands and don't call 911 or report it to the government.
The US has never been known to take much interest in other countries' cultural background. They just expect the world to adjust to their way of life ... because ya know, that's what's best ... right?

Hence when I've been traveling in foreign countries, the reason I see Americans exhibit the same lack of respect for that country as they exhibit here at home ... throw trash all over the highways, inappropriate behavior ... getting drunk and starting fights with the locals, basically taking advantage of the hospitality of the country. Behavior that then causes those people to judge all Americans ... put us all in the same boat so to speak.

2. Religiously speaking, they are allowed to defend themselves, their families and the country if they are attacked and what the US government and other countries do is show the might of their power with tanks, helicopters and military equipment and this gives them the sense of getting occupied, which they have fought against throughout history.
Again, the mighty US shoot 'em up bang bang attitude ... our guns are bigger than yours and so you must do as we say ... our way is the best way.

3. What the US military and the rest of the military gang from other countries do is bombard places, villages, cities and kill innocent children and destroy families and that encourages male members of different tribe and groups to band together for the following reasons:

A. They want to revenge the death of their entire family that the US military carpet bombed.

B. Some join different groups because they have large families and they don't have money to support them financially, so joining different groups helps them earn some money to support their family. All of this is because of poor economy and war that we have created in there.
To them life is precious and the attitude with us is that if someone comes in here and kills 3000 of our people, that gives us the right to just go blow up the whole country and kill off anyone who gets in our path, as we look for one person who we want to get even with. It doesn't matter that thousands and thousands of innocent lives are lost (on both sides) ... that's just collateral damage ... you know, as in ... "Gee too bad your house was in the same village we thought the terrorist lived in. Guess you had bad luck ... eh?" The main thing is that the mighty US will get even ... no matter what cost.

4. Taliban are not just an "organized group" as the US military and the rest of the world considers them to be. People band together just like I mentioned above in different parts and form groups and form resistance against foreign troops for the above-mentioned reasons and the US government labels them as "Taliban".
Just as the previous administration has programed so many here into believing that ALL Islams and Muslims just want to kill us. There are no exceptions ... it's ALL or nothing. They can't even come up with a really strong argument as to why that even might be the case, just "They came in here and killed 3000 of our people and so ALL Islams and Muslums just want to kill us all."

5. There are groups that might be out there that don't belong to these two categories and are running operations, but it is all a mixed group of different people.
So what? The US wants to get even and none of any of that matters ... that's why even though it's been proven that the drones are killing up to 15 innocents for every 1 bad guy ... they will continue to use the drones. Those 15 innocents are just collateral damage and besides that's what those people get for possibly harboring the people who are responsible for killing 3000 of our people ... right?

- The only way to bring solution to Afghan crisis is to stop showing off the military power and instead get the people engaged by finding their potentials and teaching them how to earn a living whether it is farming, carpentry, manufacturing etc. That way, the majority of men will be able to support their families and will not arm here and there to form resistance.
And that would be all well and good if we had not gone in there already and basically acted like jackasses to begin with (thanks to "The High Functioning Moron"). Now there is no way to undo what we have done and the culture over there is not going to be so forgiving of our blunders.

OT ...
Get the troops out of there, bring them home and perhaps send some people who are really adept in helping those people rebuild their nation. Maybe we could earn back a fraction of respect that way ... maybe, but unlikely ... because so much damage has been done that it would take a miracle to repair it.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:14:54 AM


... speaking to the "Arab world" and various non-governmental Arab organizations ... wouldn't necessarily apply to the extremists now would it?
Point is ... the Cairo speech certainly didn't make things right with the perceived enemies over there in the Middle East.
so we agree then. the obama world apology tour was a bust.
No ... that's not what I said, but nice try on trying to turn the meaning around ...

Since I can see there is at least one person who needs it spelled out (even though it was already wonderfully stated in the quote below in Message 25) ... the Cairo speech wasn't directed at the Afghans or Pakistanis ... or even the Taliban (our "perceived" enemies). So no we DO NOT agree if you are trying to say the Cairo speech (world apology tour?) was a bust. Again ... nice try on trying to turn the meaning of my post around ...

Here's that statement you must have missed ...
"a bit nomadic" (Message 25) ...
Afghanistan is not an Arab state (nor even close). Afghans aren't Arabs. Pakistanis aren't Arabs. The Talilban isn't an Arab organization (bin Laden is, but he's neither Afghan nor Taliban). And while Obama HAS changed the tone when it comes to our dealings with the Muslim world, it's not as if he can push a magical button and make all the bad feelings developed over years just disappear. Things just don't work that way. ... which is why it's so disastrous to cowboy our way across the world (and then cry because people don't realize just how fabulous we are). We are actually an occupying force in Afghanistan....and however inadvertently, we've killed civilians there (apart from the problems at Gitmo, etc.). Why should Afghans be moved by Obama's Cairo speech (which most of them probably have never heard). The Cairo speech wasn't directed at Afghans, but at the parts of the larger Islamic community radicalized by what they have perceived to be our anti-Muslim agenda.


OT ...
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?

Yes ... get them out of there and bring them home.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:23:41 PM

These apology tours of Obama's probably have a bit to do with the renewed fighting in the two war zones, and probably were not good for all our soldiers' morale.
But .... but ..... I thought the troops back OBAMA 6 - 1?

I think with that they are saying they want an end to this ... let's bring them home and ask them!!!!
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 26
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:21:41 PM
Msg. 34 - thank you! Yes, as a matter of fact, that DOES clarify it nicely! From the article you referenced:

While not setting a timetable or exit strategy, the president said there will be clear benchmarks to measure progress, and a requirement that the Afghan government deal with corruption.

"Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable," he said. "We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan Security Forces, and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals."

Obama also asked for more help from NATO and the rest of the international community.

"None of the steps that I have outlined will be easy, and none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or Al Qaeda operates unchecked," he said. "We have a shared responsibility to act – not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends upon it. And what’s at stake now is not just our own security – it is the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security."


Looks like he's doing exactly what he said back then during the campaign, assessing the situation carefully as promised - and "not because we seek to project power for its own sake."

You people need to take your meds and get the hatred under control! He's our president. Your pair of losers lost. Get over it and move on! You're so blinded by hate for the man that you can't help but premise every distorted thought from that point. Sad. Truly sad.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:14:54 PM

... the generals want to do the job but their hands are tied.
I wonder who tied them before OBAMA took command?

If we are not going to support our soldiers properly, then we should bring them home.
Is that the way you felt when the "C0ck" & "The High Functioning Moron" were sitting on their hands last year?

I heard plenty of Obamas apologists make up all kinds of excuses, but taking months to make a decision on troop levels is reprehensible.
You're right ... is that how you also felt when the "C0ck" & "The High Functioning Moron" did it? Or are your feelings regarding "reprehensible" only reserved for President OBAMA?

Here ya go ... I found this for your reading pleasure. Keep in mind that the authors of the following article are flaming Republicans and so obviously the article has been written to show the "C0ck" & "The High Functioning Moron" in the best light as possible under the circumstances ...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/from-the-fact-check-desk-did-mckiernans-troop-requests-just-sit-on-bush-white-house-desks.html
Did McKiernan’s Troop Requests Just Sit on Bush White House Desks?

October 22, 2009 7:50 PM

Responding to Vice President Cheney’s accusation that President Obama is “dithering” by taking time to assess a new strategy in Afghanistan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs earlier today said “the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan. Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months, a resource request filled by President Obama in March.”

Is that accurate?

It’s a bit more nuanced than that.

The troop requests to which Gibbs referred were made by then-Gen. David McKiernan. McKiernan started off making individual requests for brigades, and that list kept growing.

Officials from that time say that demands in Iraq prevented the Bush administration from fulfilling the requests until just before Bush left office. (Prioritizing troops to Iraq over those to Afghanistan is, of course, a choice.)

In his first interview after being fired by Defense Secretary Gates over the summer, McKiernan told the Washington Post about his appointment to command ISAF troops in Afghanistan in June 2008: "There was a saying when I got there: If you're in Iraq and you need something, you ask for it. If you're in Afghanistan and you need it, you figure out how to do without it."

In retrospect McKiernan’s troop requests ultimately added up to roughly 30,000 more troops, a combination of combat units and support troops.

Throughout most of 2008, the Bush administration tried to get NATO countries to fill that gap, though they had to have known that would be a challenge. By the late summer, 2008 Bush administration officials realized NATO wasn’t going to come through.

In September 2008 that led the Pentagon to order 2,000 Marines to replace Marines sent to Afghanistan in January as a one-time deployment. At the same time, it also ordered in the first of the additional four combat brigades that McKiernan had requested. This unit of 3,700 soldiers would arrive in January, 2009 and had been originally scheduled to deploy to Iraq.

In December 2008, President Bush sent 2,800 troops to Afghanistan from an aviation brigade that McKiernan had also requested.

So as McKiernan’s outstanding requests for more forces accumulated throughout 2008 to roughly 30,000 soldiers, President Bush sent at least 6,800 troops – ***months and months after the requests had come in***.

By March, President Obama had ordered 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – which can be seen as roughly the outstanding balance of McKiernan’s original request.
Soooo ... if those calling for immediate troops are willing to give the "C0ck" & "The High Functioning Moron" a pass on their bumble for going on 8 months, I wonder how much time they will be willing to allow OBAMA?

The article continues ...[quoteSo Gibbs’s claim that for “eight months” McKiernan’s request for troops “sat on desks” isn’t accurate.

But those requests weren’t exactly being met with the urgency Cheney has suddenly decided President Obama must meet, lest he be seen as “dithering.”
 EarlzP
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:49:27 PM

Believe me, I am a conservative not a republican. I don't think our past president was sterling in this area. We need to let the generals fight the war without putting a bunch of restrictions on them


General McCrystal should be removed from command he violated the chain of command by going to the public. By doing so he has exposed those in his command to unneeded escualation of the taliban, they will see the differences in opinion in try to use them to their advantage.

The talks between President Obama and his advisors and staff should have been done in private and no information leaked unless it was going to benefit the USA and our allies and troops in the field
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 32
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:55:42 PM

We are back to the Bush did it so why can't Obama do it agrument again.
I don't think so ... but how about if we give OBAMA a chance to do it right instead of rushing in like a blithering fool.

As we can see, rushing in sure didn't do the last administration any good ... eh?
 where4
Joined: 10/1/2008
Msg: 33
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 1:49:14 AM
Msg. 48:
Obama can remove him, that is his right as commander and chief. Whether or not McCrystal is in charge, the issues remain the same.

Agreed, McCrystal is but one man. Tearing down that one man's credibility does not mean his position on troop build-up is without merit. Others favor this position, also.

Msg. 49:
In this engagement im sure not all are religous extremists, some are simply defending their home.

Good point.

It's also worth noting that not all the religious extremists in this war are Muslim terrorists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqVuqFOBk-o

Again, msg. 48:
We need to decide whether we are going to fight bare knuckles or to keep on the gloves. If we want to keep on the gloves, we will fail to achieve victory.

Want to define how you'd "take off the gloves?" I'm curious. Drones sure can kill a lot of people but they haven't proved a very good idea, considering the resulting Hate America passion.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 34
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 2:41:23 PM


Drones sure can kill a lot of people but they haven't proved a very good idea, considering the resulting Hate America passion.
And we care because?
How absolutely arrogant and unbelievable.

I think we should be concerned that Pakistan hates us ... they could be an ally but we're creating a lot of hate by killing 15 innocent people just to target one (supposed) "bad guy". See message 21 ...

Also ... some excerpts from the following link
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440
60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians

Friday, April 10, 2009

By Amir Mir

LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

Figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities show that a total of 701 people, including 14 al-Qaeda leaders, have been killed since January 2006 in 60 American predator attacks targeting the tribal areas of Pakistan. Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians while three attacks conducted in 2007 had slain 66 Pakistanis, yet none of the wanted al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders could be hit by the Americans right on target. However, of the 50 drone attacks carried out between January 29, 2008 and April 8, 2009, 10 hit their targets and killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda operatives. Most of these attacks were carried out on the basis of intelligence believed to have been provided by the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen who had been spying for the US-led allied forces stationed in Afghanistan.

The remaining 50 drone attacks went wrong due to faulty intelligence information, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children. The number of the Pakistani civilians killed in those 50 attacks stood at 537, in which 385 people lost their lives in 2008 and 152 people were slain in the first 99 days of 2009 (between January 1 and April 8).



And we care because?
How would you feel if those people were your relatives and friends and loved ones?

Of the 50 drone attacks, targeting the Pakistani tribal areas since January 2008, 36 were carried out in 2008 and 14 were conducted in the first 99 days of 2009. Of the 14 attacks targeting Pakistan in 2009, three were carried out in January, killing 30 people, two in February killing 55 people, five in March killing 36 people and four were conducted in the first nine days of April, killing 31 people.

Of the 14 strikes carried out in the first 99 days of April 2009, only one proved successful, killing two most wanted senior al-Qaeda leaders - Osama al Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan. Both had lost their lives in a New Year’s Day drone strike carried out in the South Waziristan region on January 1, 2009.
So we killed 150 innocent people and only 2 bad guys and we got them on January 1, 2009.

For 98 more days, all we did was kill innocent Pakistanis.


The American forces stationed in Afghanistan carried out nine aerial strikes between September 3 and September 25, 2008, killing 57 people and injuring 38 others. The attacks were launched on September 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 17, 22 and September 27. However, the September 3, 2008 American action was unique in the sense that two CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters landed in the village of Zawlolai in the South Waziristan Agency with ground troops from the US Special Operation Forces, fired at three houses and killed 17, including five women and four sleeping children.

Besides the two helicopters carrying the US Special Forces Commandos, two jet fighters and two gun-ship helicopters provided the air cover for the half-an-hour American operation, more than a kilometer inside the Pakistani border.


The last predator strike on [April 8, 2009] was carried out hardly a few hours after the Pakistani authorities had rejected an American proposal for joint operations in the tribal areas against terrorism and militancy, as differences of opinion between the two countries over various aspects of the war on terror came out into the open for the first time.

The proposal came from two top US visiting officials, presidential envoy for the South Asia Richard Holbrooke and Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. However, the Pakistani military and political leadership reportedly rejected the proposal and adopted a tough posture against a barrage of increasing US predator strikes and criticism emanating from Washington, targeting the Pakistan Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and creating doubts about their sincerity in the war on terror and the fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban.

Do we really have a right to go in and do that to those people? Just because we failed miserably at the original onset, do we really have a right to now cross into Pakistan and kill innocent people?

And we care because?
I think we should care because they are innocent human beings who had nothing to do with what happened here in 2001.

Pakistani people were standing up asking Clinton how many more innocent lives they want to take with all of those Drone Attacks ... they want their country back, they don't want us there killing them just because we are occupying Iraq and trying to nation build in Afghanistan (because we sure aren't hunting Al Qaeda or OBL ... they're all long gone).
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 35
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 5:53:17 PM

If someone has a better way of doing it, I am sure the pentagon would love to hear from them.
Really? We're talking about Pakistani citizens here. When did we invade Pakistan?

We're talking about 150 innocent citizens in 98 days getting blown to bits because of ..... what? Phony intelligence? If it was happening in you town on your block do you think you'd be so "It's okay" with that?

So you'd be okay if your family was visiting you at your house and some a__hole turned in a member of your family and they tracked that person to your house and without warning, your house got blown up just so they kill that supposed bad person?

That's how much sense this all makes.

Your statement before was just absolutely despicable ...
And we care because?
That just pretty much says it all. You really just don't care about any other human life ... other than your own!!!! And your posts reflect that.

If someone has a better way of doing it, I am sure the pentagon would love to hear from them.
Maybe someone needs to remind the Pentagon that we aren't supposed to be killing people in Pakistan!!!! Not to mention they have asked us to cease and desist!!!
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 36
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:33:48 PM
From the original post ...
The resignation of Matthew Hoh, a senior Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain, reverberated as far as the White House, not only because of his superb credentials but also because of his view that the presence of US troops is fueling the insurgency.
That makes sense to me and it seems we have overstayed our welcome.

I think it would be stupid to send more troops for the insurgents to use as walking, breathing, target practice ... BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!!!
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 37
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 7:14:30 PM
We could always pull out and let China annex Afghanistan into her borders. They would love to be able to control all of the natural resources and minerals in Afghanistan. China would fill Afghanistan with probably more then 500,000 troops and things like "suicide bombers" would be a thing of the past. I don't think the red army would play all that nice when attacked by Afghan peasants and other militants.

Many of our European allies in Afghanistan don't even shoot back when shot at. What a joke. I do think the outcome of the Soviet-Afghan war would have been a lot different if Stalin and his Army Generals had still run the Soviet Union and the Red Army when they invaded Afghanistan. Heck the Russians invaded Berlin with something like 2.5 million men. That's only one city and then the captured axis troops were hauled off to gulags (Labor camps) and many were not released until the mid 1950's. A great war book to read is--The fall of Berlin-1945.

Bottom line is that if were not gonna fight this war to win then we should count our losses and pull out.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/3/2009 7:46:18 PM

Bottom line is that if were not gonna fight this war to win then we should count our losses and pull out.
What were we supposed to "WIN"? I thought we were just going after OBL and some Al Qaeda guys.

So what is it that we are actually fighting there? Taliban? What does that have to do with our original mission ... OBL and some Al Qaeda guys?

We are not supposed to be "nation building" ... right?

**Wonders when we are going to learn a lesson from the forum Soviet Union ... they spent over 10 years there and just finally packed up and left. We're getting close ... time to leave.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:56:21 AM

... its still better to use tehy fly trap startergy of fighting them there than await them to come here, by here i mean Europe or the USA.
Seems no one can decide who it is anyone is supposed to be fighting.

At any rate, we were OBL's dream come true ... we reacted just as he planned we would, then that bumbling fool in the White House decided to illegally invade a sovereign nation ... our country is bankrupt.

I wonder, did someone sneak "Dubya" a copy of OBL's plan to send the US into ruins ... because if he didn't, it couldn't have worked out any better for OBL ... eh? The country is in financial ruins, our military is stretched to the limits, and politically, we're so divided that we can't even get together to see to it that everyone has a chance at getting affordable health care. The longer that takes, the more sickly we will become ...

YUP ... a dream come true for OBL.

Now who is it again that is supposed to be our "enemy"? And just by the way, who needs enemies abroad when we have them in our midst ... fighting us on everything we're trying to do for the betterment of our nation?


Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
YES!!!
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:05:49 PM
OBAMA did not start this and now he's stuck with finishing it the best way he can. I hope he will make the best choice.

We already know the Republicans have no regard for life. They have no problem that over 120 people die every day because of lack of health insurance and that doesn't bother them in the least.

So it's apparent that they want him to send more troops because they don't care if our troops are also getting killed. It's not rocket science ... just sad.

They start this thing and then want to send more and more to be maimed, mutilated, die ... typical Republican response. Nothing new ... eh?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 44
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:26:19 PM
Afghanistan is now arguably Obama's war/occupation, and it looks to be a lose/lose proposition. We lost a lot of headway there by being distracted by Iraq, and we're just trying to get back to that former progress now.

Yes, sending more troops will cause more casualties. But leaving will result in a power vacuum. It was a power vacuum that caused the Taliban to come to power there in the first damn place. Add in Pakistan and its nukes, and it gets kinda ugly.

I predict that IF we leave, a future president is just going to send us back in, and we get to do this all over again. But, really, I predict we will stay-- it's just a matter of how many troops, if there will be leadership/strategy changes, and for how long.

Either way, there will be plenty for people from both sides of the aisle to complain about and anguish over.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:39:13 PM

Quit blaming the Republicans in this situation. Well, for the continuing situation at least.
It was the Repugnicans that took us into both wars ... to be exact ..."The High Functioning Moron".

You either want the troops home....or you want them to finish the job.
I don't know that there ever was "a job". Who the hell do you think we're going after at this point? OBL is long gone as are the Al Qaeda. Who would you have us go after? What job are we to finish? We're not supposed to be there for "Nation Building".

I see the Afghan Police have again opened fire on the very people who are supposed to be there helping them ... now they shot some UK soldiers to death ... friendly fire? Hmmm ... it's only been about month since an Afghan policeman fired on American soldiers during a joint patrol in Wardak Province. It killed two Americans.

http://www.fox40.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-as-afghan-british-troops,0,6425333.story
Killing of 5 British soldiers raises questions about infiltration of Afghan police force

KABUL (AP) — The killing of five British troops by a rogue Afghan policeman underlines concerns about training and discipline within the ranks and possible insurgent infiltration of a police force that the U.S. hopes will be its ticket out of Afghanistan someday.

The attack caused anguish in Britain, where public support for the war has been waning. Britain is the largest contributor to NATO forces in Afghanistan after the United States, and its continued presence here is central to President Barack Obama's strategy as he weighs dispatching tens of thousands more U.S. troops.

The five British soldiers, who had been advising Afghan policemen, were shot and killed Tuesday at a checkpoint where they were living in the volatile southern province of Helmand. Another six soldiers were wounded, as were two Afghan policemen when the soldiers returned fire, officials said.

The gunman escaped and his motive was unclear.


A "rogue" Afghan policeman ... our ticket out of Aghanistan ... uh huh.
 geeleebee
Joined: 5/26/2008
Msg: 50
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/5/2009 7:58:38 AM

Um, we are there because President Obama, the House and the Senate have decided that we will stay there. Which part of that are you not understanding??


Not the answer to the question asked.

Question: Why are we there?

We are there, ostensibly, to look for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the
9/11 attacks on American citizens.
We continue to be there for the same reason.
Why we went in the first place had nothing to do with President Obama.
(yeah, I know--he voted to go into Iraq)


Now those in control just want to point fingers, yet do nothing but sit on their hands.


Sitting on their hands and pointing fingers!
Okay--that was funny...pointing fingers while sitting on their hands...funny visual...
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/11/2009 9:54:38 AM
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home? AMEN! Long overdue, they should have never been sent in the first place. You do not beat terror with terror. War is terror..

We should have focused our resources on making sure that it would be much more difficult to attack us and make it as expensive as possible to attack us by staying here. Let them spend all their resources and time trying to figure out how to get at us. Instead we took to foolish road and made it as cheap as it gets to commit acts of terror on our citizens by sending them over there as troops. So now it is cheap to attack us, and easy to get more recruits because now the USA is acting just like they want. Every time a civilian gets caught in the crossfire more recruits for the terrorists.

Osama bin laden likely is no longer alive. He was said to be ill with terminal cancer before the war even started and was said, to be on dialysis for renal failure.

So think about it for a second barely alive all those years ago hiding in caves walking around on IVs and dialysis machine and cant be found for all these years. They probably recorded plenty of tapes or made people learn how to look like him and sound like him, to make new ones. Makes for the perfect bogey man that can never be found.

This is all a horse and pony show.
 kabiosile
Joined: 11/3/2005
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Is it Time to Bring the Troops Home?
Posted: 11/12/2009 10:06:38 AM


How you claim that terror is not defeated by terror, which militray conflict/s are you aware of where this was the case?.


http://acdalliance.org/node/413

That is not Gandhi speaking either that is a non-profit corporation that studies these sorts of things.

If we go back and study how the vast majority of other terrorist groups were stopped most were brought to the negotiating table, or dealt with by police forces. Using war to stop terror has a VERY poor track record. War is terror. It causes innocent people to suffer whom might start thinking what those terrorists guys are saying makes sense. Thus more passionate recruits. Invading them merely sets up the climate for insurgency, and quagmire. That's great news for the war profiteers but, bad news for the rest of the world.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  >